Public Document Pack

SOUTH LAKELAND DISTRICT COUNCIL South Lakeland House Kendal, Cumbria LA9 4UQ www.southlakeland.gov.uk

You are requested to attend a meeting of the Planning Committee on Thursday, 30 January 2014, at 10.00 am in the District Council Chamber, South Lakeland House, Kendal

Committee Membership

Councillors

Brian Cooper Joss Curwen Philip Dixon Sheila Eccles (Vice-Chairman) Sylvia Emmott David Fletcher Gill Gardner Clive Graham Brenda Gray John Holmes Janette Jenkinson Sonia Lawson Ian McPherson (Chairman) Bharath Rajan David Ryder David Williams Mary Wilson

Tuesday, 21 January 2014

Debbie Storr, Director of Policy and Resources (Monitoring Officer)

For all enquiries, please contact:- Committee Administrator: Paul Rogers Telephone: 01539 793497 e-mail: [email protected] AGENDA

Page Nos. PART I

1 APOLOGIES To receive apologies for absence, if any. 2 MINUTES 1 - 8 To authorise the Chairman to sign, as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 19 December 2013 (copy attached). 3 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST To receive declarations by Members of interests in respect of items on this Agenda.

Members are reminded that, in accordance with the revised Code of Conduct, they are required to declare any disclosable pecuniary interests or other registerable interests which have not already been declared in the Council’s Register of Interests. (It is a criminal offence not to declare a disclosable pecuniary interest either in the Register or at the meeting.)

Members may, however, also decide, in the interests of clarity and transparency, to declare at this point in the meeting, any such disclosable pecuniary interests which they have already declared in the Register, as well as any other registerable or other interests.

If a Member requires advice on any item involving a possible declaration of interest which could affect his/her ability to speak and/or vote, he/she is advised to contact the Monitoring Officer at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting. 4 LO CAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 - EXCLUDED ITEMS To consider whether the items, if any, in Part II of the Agenda should be considered in the presence of the press and public. 5 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Any member of the public who wishes to ask a question, make representations or present a deputation or petition at this meeting should apply to do so before the commencement of the meeting. Information on how to make the application can be obtained by viewing the Council’s Website www.southlakeland.gov.uk or by contacting the Democratic and Electoral Services Manager on 01539 793186.

(1) Planning Applications

Planning applications for which requests to speak have been made.

(2) Agenda Items

Agenda items for which requests to speak have been made. 6 REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF PEOPLE AND PLACES 9 - 102 To determine planning applications received. 7 A REPORT ON ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY 103 - 114 To inform Members about enforcement activity. 8 APPEALS UPDATE 115 - 126 To provide Members with information about the receipt and determination of planning appeals. 9 BUDGET 2014/15 127 - 132 To consider the proposed budgets that will be used as the basis for committing expenditure and monitoring income and expenditure during 2014/15. PART II

Private Section (exempt reasons under Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, as amended by the Local Government (Access to Information) (Variation) Order 2006, specified by way of paragraph number)

There are no items in this part of the Agenda. This page is intentionally left blank Item No.2 59 19.12.2013 Planning Committee

PLANNING COMMITTEE

Minutes of the proceedings at a meeting of the Planning Committee held in the The Main Hall, Victoria Hall, Grange-over-Sands, on Thursday, 19 December 2013, at 10.30 a.m.

Present

Councillors

Ian McPherson (Chairman) Sheila Eccles (Vice-Chairman)

Brian Cooper Gill Gardner Bharath Rajan Joss Curwen Brenda Gray David Ryder Sylvia Emmott John Holmes David Williams David Fletcher Janette Jenkinson Mary Wilson

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Philip Dixon, Clive Graham and Sonia Lawson. Officers

Zaheer Bashir Solicitor Fiona Clark Planning Officer John Greenbank Democratic Services and Scrutiny Assistant Kate Lawson Planning Officer Mark Loughran Development Control Team Leader

P/72 MINUTES

RESOLVED- That the Chairman be authorised to sign, as a correct record, the minutes of the Committee meeting held 28 November 2013.

P/73 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

RESOLVED – That no declarations of interest were made.

P/74 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 - EXCLUDED ITEMS

RESOLVED – That it be noted that there were no items in Part II of the Agenda.

Page 1 60 19.12.2013 Planning Committee

P/75 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

1. SL/2013/0691 GRANGE OVER SANDS: land between Allithwaite Road and Carter Road, Grange Over Sands. Erection of 42 Dwellings with vehicular and pedestrian access, parking and garages (Russell Armer Ltd)

Mrs Valerie Kennedy spoke on behalf of a group of Kents Bank Residents, in opposition to the application. She highlighted the view that the application was for a site that the group believed was not well located in relation to local jobs and infrastructure, in particular the sewer drainage from the site. A full copy of her representation can be found on the Democratic Services file.

Mr John Sexton, a resident of Allithwaite Road, spoke in opposition to the application. Mr Sexton expressed the view that the development would have negative effect on the surrounding area and questioned the quality of the proposed houses. He also raised the issue of lights from vehicles using the proposed development intruding into the houses opposite, thus causing a nuisance to those living there.

Mr Robin Webster, a resident of Allithwaite Road, spoke in opposition to the application. He highlighted the potential dangers of increased traffic on the surrounding roads. He informed the Committee that Allithwaite Road was a busy and potential dangerous road and that the application would increase the number of cars using it and therefore increase the risk to pedestrians. He requested the application be deferred until the issues could be resolved. A full copy of his representation can be found on the Democratic Services file.

Mss Susan Jackson, a local resident, also spoke in opposition to the application. She drew attention to the drainage issues surrounding the site and the effect that the development might have. She also criticised the layout and number of houses proposed. A full copy of her representation can be found on the Democratic Services file

Mr David Roberts, a local resident, spoke in opposition to the application. He raised the issues of inadequate drainage and the infrastructure of the town. He also expressed the view that the site chosen for the development was unsuitable and would damage the image and reputation of the town. A full copy of his representation can be found on the Democratic Services file.

Grange Town Councillor Joanna Greenway, on behalf of Grange Town Council, spoke in opposition to the application. She indicated that the Town Council was of the view that the proposed development did not meet the Core Strategy requirements with regard to flood risk due to inadequate drainage. A full copy of her representation can be found on the Democratic Services file.

Ms Margaret Brennand, a resident of Grange, spoke in opposition to the application. Ms Brennand informed the Committee of her view that the town currently had a problem with traffic and lack of parking spaces and that the proposed development would make such problems worse. A full copy of her representation can be found on the Democratic Services file.

Page 2 61 19.12.2013 Planning Committee

Ms Margaret Carter, a local resident, spoke in opposition to the application and expressed her view that the site for the proposed development was unsuitable due to inadequate drainage. A full copy of her representation can be found on the Democratic Services file.

Mr Chris Eckersley, a local resident, spoke in opposition to the application. He stated that he had been refused permission to present a slide-show detailing concerns over road safety on Carter Road. He presented his intended representations orally without visual aid. A full copy of his representation, can be found on the Democratic Services file.

Ms Lee Hill, a local resident, spoke in opposition to the application. She gave a summary of a report by Mr Roger Yarwood into the design and layout of the proposed development. Ms Hill explained that his report criticised the design of the proposed development as not being in keeping with local distinctiveness. She also expressed the opinion that the proposed designs did not secure the privacy of residents. A full copy of her representation can be found on the Democratic Services file.

Mr Peter Nightingale, a resident of Grange, spoke in opposition to the application. Mr Nightingale expressed the view that the application did not meet the requirements of either the Core Strategy or the National Planning Policy Framework and should therefore be rejected. A full copy of his representation can be found on the Democratic Services file.

Mr Kenneth Taylor, a local resident, spoke in opposition to the application. He expressed concerns about road safety. Specifically he mentioned the potential lack of visibility when exiting the proposed development onto Allithwaite Road. He stated that the traffic issues surrounding the site had not been properly assessed. A full copy of his representation can be found on the Democratic Services file.

Mr John Sexton read out a statement on behalf of Mr and Mrs I. Grant, residents of Allithwaite Road, outlining their opposition to the application. The statement raised a number of issues, including; local opposition, drainage, lack of affordable housing and traffic problems. A full copy of Mr and Mrs Grant’s representation can be found on the Democratic Services file.

Ms Christine Kershaw, a resident of Allithwaite Road, spoke in opposition to the application. She drew attention to the problems with traffic surrounding the site and expressed the view that there was a risk to child safety if the development went ahead. She also criticised the design of the proposed houses and the potential creation of an urban sprawl with no green gaps across the town.

Ms Christine McCann, a resident of Allithwaite Road, spoke in opposition to the application. She had misgivings about the proposed development, stating that a large number of local residents had objected to the application.

Page 3 62 19.12.2013 Planning Committee

District Councillor Andrew Gardiner, Ward Member for Grange North, spoke against the application. Councillor Gardiner indicated that he was not against development in general but that the proposed development had a number of issues that meant it should be refused. He mentioned the objections of Network Rail relating to the drainage at the site, which was inadequate.

Professor John Whitelegg, spoke on behalf of a group of Kilmidyke residents, in objection to the application. He stated that there were a number of issues about the site, which included the effect on traffic and drainage as well as the quality of the proposed houses. A full copy of his representation can be found on the Democratic Services file.

Mr Frank McCall, a local resident, spoke in opposition to the application. He raised a number of points, including his concerns for the future of the town if the proposed development was approved. A full copy of his representation can be found on the Democratic Services file.

Ms Lydia Scales, a local resident, spoke in opposition to the application. She felt that insufficient work had been done into the potential impact of the development on the drainage system as well as its contribution to traffic issues in the town. A full copy of her representation can be found on the Democratic Services file.

District Councillor Tom Harvey, Ward Member for Grange South, spoke in opposition to the application. Councillor Harvey criticised the nature of the proposed development expressing the view that it was not in keeping with the town and raised issues including drainage and problems with traffic. He asked the Committee to note the level of public feeling against the application within the town.

Mr Brian Barden of Stephen Abbott Associates spoke on behalf of the applicant. He stated that surveys had been carried out into the issues raised by those objecting to the application and that they were satisfied that the issues could be resolved by the conditions mentioned in the report. He also stated that the design of the building included the use of local materials and that the town possessed no common features for the design to follow.

P/76 ADJOURNMENT OF MEETING

The Committee adjourned at 12.15 p.m. and reconvened at 12.30 p.m. when the same Members were present.

P/77 PUBLIC PARTICPATION

1. SL/2013/0691 GRANGE OVER SANDS: land between Allithwaite Road and Carter Road, Grange Over Sands. Erection of 42 Dwellings with vehicular and pedestrian access, parking and garages (Russell Armer Ltd)

Members were informed that the site had included in the Adopted Land Allocations Development Plan Document and that the cumulative traffic impact of the site had been considered as part of that process.

Page 4 63 19.12.2013 Planning Committee

The Committee heard from Doug Coile who was a drainage expert from Cumbria County Council, the lead flood Authority, that although there were concerns about the site, they could be resolved by the conditions included in the report.

After considering the report and the representations made, Members felt that further investigation was required regarding drainage.

DEFER – to allow more time for discussions to enable the resolution of the drainage issues related to the application.

P/78 ADJOURNMENT OF THE MEETING

The Committee adjourned at 1.50 p.m. and reconvened at 1.55 p.m. when the same Members were present.

P/79 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

3. SL/2013/1023 ULVERSTON: 19 Quebec Street, Ulverston, LA12 9AD. Erection of two storey rear extension, front porch and amendment to front elevation (part retrospective). Ms S. Nicholson.

Mr Mark Wilson, a local Town, District and County Councillor spoke in support of the application. He explained that the house was a family home and needed the proposed extension. He felt that development of this nature should be seen as positive and welcomed in the area and informed the Committee of the applicants intention to incorporate solar panels into the proposed extensions. Mr David Barrett, the architect of the proposed extension, responded. He highlighted the lack of objection from the occupants of neighbouring properties. In relation to the proposed enforcement activity he expressed the view that the changes made to the approved plans were not substantial. He also mentioned the financial burden the applicant would be placed under if they had to alter the development. Members were informed that the application sought retrospective permission for the construction of a two storey extension to the rear of the property. The Committee was also asked to approve enforcement action to remedy the breach of planning control specifically in reducing the height of the rear extension at eaves level to that approved in the applicant’s previously approved application SL/2012/0459. Members felt that the extension that had been constructed was overbearing, particularly to the occupants of the adjoining property. The Committee also viewed the breach of planning control regarding the height of the eaves as unacceptable, particularly in view of the retrospective permission being sought. It was felt that the applicant should have conformed to the original plans approved under SL/2012/0459. REFUSE

Page 5 64 19.12.2013 Planning Committee

P/80 REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF PEOPLE AND PLACES

SL/2013/0911 BURTON IN KENDAL: Green Dragon Farm, Off Tarn Lane, Burton In Kendal, Carnforth, LA6 1JF. Installation of 2 Wind Turbines (Urban Wind Ltd)

DEFER – To allow a site visit by Members.

P/81 A REPORT ON ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY

The Committee was presented with a report on enforcement activity between 1 October and 31 October 2013. Twelve new cases had been reported and were currently being investigated. Two hundred and seventy eight cases were currently on hand and on going investigation was being undertaken.

13.259 Animal Building Adjacent Great Urswick Tarn

The owner of the field had been granted permission to construct an animal house for two goats and shelter for bird watching. However the building had been constructed contrary to the permission granted, having been located so that it featured prominently and blocked open views as well as being located over the main drain.

12.234 Land at Cocklea, Old Hutton, Kendal, Cumbria, LA8 0NR

Note - Councillor Brian Cooper advised that the applicant of the following item of business was well known to him. He left the Main Hall for the remainder of the meeting.

Members were informed that there had been numerous unauthorised developments at the site, which was located in an area designated as being of Great Landscape Value. The development was considered to have an adverse visual impact and in excess of what was necessary for the agricultural operation of the site.

RESOLVED - That

(1) the report be noted;

(2) in respect of Animal Building Adjacent Great Urswick Tarn, the Director People and Places be authorised to use all necessary enforcement action to remedy the breach dismantling the building and neatly storing the reusable materials and take up the concrete slab foundation and remove from the land; and

(3) in respect of Land at Cocklea, Old Hutton, the Director People and Places be authorised to use all necessary enforcement action to remedy the breach of planning control.

Page 6 65 19.12.2013 Planning Committee

P/82 19 QUEBEC STREET, ULVERSTON

Arising out of consideration of planning application no. SL/2013/1023 ULVERSTON:- Erection of two storey rear extension, front porch and amendment to front elevation (part retrospective) it was

RESOLVED – That the Director People and Places be authorised to use all necessary enforcement action to remedy the breach of planning control.

P/83 APPEALS UPDATE

Members were presented with an update report on performance measures and recent appeals. Officers anticipated that targets and objectives would continue to be achieved it was noted that the results of appeals against decisions continued to follow a positive trend.

RESOLVED – That the report be noted.

The meeting ended at 3.00 p.m.

Page 7 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 8 Item No.6

SOUTH LAKELAND DISTRICT COUNCIL

From: Director (People and Places) To: Planning Committee – 30 January 2014

REPORT OF DIRECTOR (PEOPLE and PLACES)

PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR DECISION Page No

Index 13 - 101

Schedule A - Complex planning applications

Schedule B - Planning applications where the Director (People and None Places) is seeking authority to determine

Schedule C - Applications relating to Listed Buildings None

Schedule D - Advertisements None

Schedule E - Development by South Lakeland District Council and None Cumbria County Council

Schedule F - Straightforward planning applications None

Schedule G - All other submissions None

Background papers relating to the subject matter of the report For all items the background papers are contained in the files listed in the second column of the schedule index.

Note: The background papers may be inspected at the offices of the Director (People and Places), Lowther Street, Kendal, Cumbria

Page 9 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 10 SOUTH LAKELAND DISTRICT COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE – 30 January 2014

SCHEDULE REFERENCE SECTION SITE ADDRESS NUMBER NUMBER

NEW HUTTON 1 12/0845 A (13-84) Land to the north of Killington reservoir

BURTON in KENDAL 2 13/0911 A (85-94) Green Dragon Farm, off Tarn Lane

3 13/1166 A (95-101) Land immediately to the east of 29 Morewood Drive

1 Page 11 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 12 SCHEDULE A

Complex Planning Applications

SCHEDULE No: 1 SL/2012/0845

NEW HUTTON: Land to the north of Killington Reservoir

PROPOSAL: Siting of 3 wind turbines (with a maximum blade tip height of 132 metres), control building, anemometer mast and access tracks.

Banks Renewables (Killington Wind Website Link: Farm) Ltd http://applications.southlakeland.gov.uk/PlanningApplications/ detail.asp?AltRef=SL/2012/0845

E359755 N492160 30/01/2014

SUMMARY: On the one hand, the proposal would have the considerable benefit of generating renewable energy and the S106 Agreement benefits would provide for increased Internet broadband delivery to the area. On the other hand, the conspicuous, discordant appearance of 130 metres tall turbines within an attractive landscape, close to the Yorkshire Dales National Park, would cause significant harm. A balance needs to be drawn between the competing considerations of renewable energy generation with other positive benefits and landscape conservation issues.

DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: Site Description The site is currently used as grazing land. It is located adjacent to Junction 37 on the M6, south of the A684 and east of the motorway. Killington reservoir lies to the south. The current boundary of the Yorkshire Dales National Park lies approximately 3km to the east. Part of the area between the site and the National Park boundary is currently the subject of a Variation Order which, if confirmed by the Secretary of State, would extend the boundary of the National Park to within 800 metres of the application site. The Lake District National Park lies to the north and west, a distance of approximately 10km at its closest point. The Lake District is also the subject of a Variation Order which, if confirmed, would bring the National Park boundary to within 5.5kms of the application site. The Lambrigg Wind Farm lies about 1.2kms to the north on the opposite side of the motorway. The five turbines are each 70 metres to the blade tip. The Armistead Wind

Page 13 Farm, currently nearing completion at Old Hutton, will comprise six turbines each 100 metres in height to blade tip. Proposal The application proposes the construction of three, 3-bladed wind turbines with a maximum height of 132 metres to blade tip, a hub height of 80 metres and a rotor diameter of 104 metres. The turbines are to be painted in a non-reflective, semi-matt pale grey colour. According to the application, each turbine has an installed capacity of 3.4MW and the three turbines will generate a total output of up to 10.2MW operating at maximum capacity, enough, it is estimated, to power approximately 8100 homes. Turbine 1 is to be installed in the south western part of the site near to the northern shore of the reservoir; Turbine 2 will stand adjacent to the eastern site boundary; and Turbine 3 will be constructed near to the northern boundary adjacent to the A684. The proposed operational life of the wind farm is 25 years. The application also includes the installation of an 80 metres tall steel lattice anemometer mast, a control building and approximately 1km of 5-metres wide access tracks to link the turbines to the road network. Each turbine will have its own access to the public highway. Individual turbines are to be connected by underground cables to an on-site control building and sub-station. Power is then to be exported to the regional grid by connecting to the Kendal-Sedbergh overhead line. The applicant company initially stated that a community benefits fund of £27,000 each operational year will be established, equating to £675,000 over a 25-year period. This has been amended to a community benefit fund of £1,250,000 in total equating to £50,000 per year over the 25 year life span of the wind farm. In addition the onsite infrastructure will enable the provision of wireless broadband to the surrounding rural area and part of the community fund will be used to pay for the creation of that system.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT: The nearby Lambrigg Wind Farm was established following a planning permission issued in 1999. It comprises five turbines each 70 metres in height, although the permission authorises six turbines. Following this decision, planning permission was refused for eight turbines on Firbank Fell, adjacent to Junction 37 on the east side of the motorway opposite the Lambrigg Wind Farm. The turbines were to be 75 metres in height and permission was refused on the grounds of adverse landscape impact, proximity to two National Parks, adverse cultural impact and cumulative impact.

ENERGY POLICY AND THE KILLINGTON CONTRIBUTION: National policy strongly encourages the use of renewable energy sources to assist in off-setting greenhouse gas emissions and to reduce reliance on imported energy supplies. The Climate Change Act requires a 26% cut in carbon emissions by 2020, rising to 80% by 2050 (based on 1990 levels). The 2009 Renewable Energy Strategy seeks to deliver EU targets that will increase renewable energy generation to cover 15% of the UK’s energy needs. The Government views the expansion of wind energy capacity, both on- and off-shore, as key to meeting these targets. The National Planning Policy Framework contains guidance on the need for local authorities to support and encourage low-carbon energy proposals that do not cause

Page 14 unacceptable harm to the local environment. The now-revoked North West Regional Spatial Strategy contained a target for on-shore wind energy development in Cumbria to provide 210MW of installed capacity by 2010, rising to 247.5MW by 2015. Excluding single turbine developments, there are currently 18 operational schemes in the county and five more with consent. Together, these will have an installed capacity of around 140MW; a shortfall of 70MW to 2010. The Killington turbines would contribute an additional 10.2MW. The Killington turbines will meet the sustainability objectives of producing energy from renewable sources and lessening dependence on fossil fuels. The wind farm would make a contribution towards reducing CO2 emissions and would thereby contribute to tackling the challenge of climate change and meeting targets for the reduction of greenhouse gases. These are significant benefits which are supported by Government policy. The benefits of renewable energy, including those to the wider society and economy beyond the immediate area affected, are to be given significant weight in the planning process.

CONSULTATIONS: Killington Parish Meeting All parishioners were invited to vote on this application. Out of a total of 122 on the 2012 electoral role, 77 replies were returned: 42 voted for the application, 28 against and 7 were undecided. Many parishioners who supported the application, however, commented that they hoped that the tip height could be reduced to lessen the visual impact. No change on re-consultation.

New Hutton Parish Council The Parish Council objects to the application for five reasons: 1. Public consultation. Although the parish meeting held on 17 October was poorly attended, subsequent conversations by councillors with parishioners have suggested that there is a stronger feeling against the proposal than was apparent at the meeting. 2. Public visual impact. The development will have a major detrimental impact on the wider landscape when viewed from the parish’s footpaths and roads and when sailing and fishing on Killington Lake. There is particular concern about views towards the Howgill and Middleton Fells and Lune Valley, all of which will be fully inside the Dales National Park if the extension is approved by the government. 3. Cumulative visual impact. If the Killington wind farm was to be permitted, there would be no guarantee that that it would act as a counter to further applications for wind farms and single industrial-scale wind turbines. No guarantee is given in the Cumbria Wind Energy SPD about the number of developments in the area; it advises only on the maximum size of each. The wind farm would add to the present cumulative impact around Junction 37 which now has the Lambrigg wind farm, Roan Edge Quarry and a re-cycling site. Because the locality would be so damaged visually, there would be a

Page 15 case for little further damage being done by more expansion such as the re- fitting of Lambrigg wind farm with larger turbines and the further extension of the Killington wind farm by adding more turbines. 4. Economic impact. Tourism-related enterprises in the parish such as caravan sites, B&B’s, holiday homes and holiday chalets could be affected although the wind farm would be largely hidden behind Roan Edge. Evidence is available that suggests an area with wind turbines can have a negative effect on tourism. 5. Benefit versus harm. Parishioners opposed to the application have asserted that the benefit yielded by the turbines in terms of increased renewable energy would not outweigh the harm done to the public view of the wider landscape.

No additional comments following re-consultation.

Firbank Parish Meeting The Firbank Parish Meeting objects to the planning application for the following principal reasons: • The site is very near to Firbank which will be part of the extended National Park. • The A684 is the gateway to the Yorkshire Dales but the turbines will interfere with the iconic view of the Howgills and the Dales on the approach from Kendal. • The area has exceptional landscape quality and industrial development of this type is inappropriate. • The turbines are completely out of scale for the landscape. • Many years ago, the motorway was designed to have minimum effect on the landscape as has the discreet planning for the Killington Motorway Service Area and the screening of the nearby Roan Edge Quarry. The proposed turbines would be very detrimental to all efforts to minimise the disturbance to the landscape of other developments. • There are already turbines at Lambrigg and a wind farm is under construction at Old Hutton; the cumulative effect of more turbines will impact greatly on the environment. • The Meeting agrees that there is a need to find alternative sources of power but of a low impact nature.

Lambrigg Parish Meeting The Parish Meeting has serious objections to the wind farm on the following grounds: • The principal objection is that the turbines would have a massive detrimental effect on the unique landscape of the countryside for people who live and work in the area and for visitors and tourists. The immense height of the turbines would have an even more dominating impact than the present Lambrigg Wind Farm. The area is adjacent to and highly visible from two National Parks (due to be extended) which are meant to preserve the landscape.

Page 16 • The proposal raises serious ecological issues for future generations. Although there is a strategy for removal the massive amounts of concrete in the foundations would remain for all time and the land containing the access tracks could never be restored to its former condition for agricultural use. Lambrigg Parish remains unconvinced that wildlife and, in particular, bird breeding and migration would be unaffected and may have lasting consequences for the future. • The countryside community has suffered a great deal in recent years and diversification from agriculture has been encouraged by government, principally into tourism to support the local economy. Junction 37 of the M6 is one of the gateways to the Lake District and the Yorkshire Dales. Visitors come to the area to escape their own industrial and highly populated areas and want some peaceful and unspoilt countryside to enjoy. This proposal flies in the face of such conditions and would clearly discourage visitor numbers, further eroding local jobs and incomes. • The Planning Committee is requested to refuse planning permission for the turbines.

Sedbergh Parish Council In considering the application, the Parish Council acknowledged that national policy presumes in favour of sustainable development generally and encourages the development of renewable energy generation in particular. However, in relation to this specific proposal at Killington, the Council is strongly of the view that the adverse environmental impacts would be so substantial and incapable of mitigation that the application should be refused. The turbine towers, by reason of their height and exposed location would be highly damaging to the landscape setting of the Yorkshire Dales National Park and would impact unacceptably on views of the Howgill and Middleton Fells and views of the Lune Valley from those fells. Additionally, the Parish of Sedbergh would be most harmed by the development in that the topography of the area is such that the turbines would appear as discordant and unwelcome features viewed from many vantage points within the Parish. The Council considers that the proposals cannot be reconciled with long-established national and local policies which seek to protect our finest landscapes. Whilst the Council’s objection to the application is founded primarily on the unacceptable visual harm that would be caused by the proposed development, members also raised a number of other concerns. Such concerns included the possible harm to wildlife (particularly ornithological interests), potential unsafe distraction to highway users, adverse effects on the tourist economy and the possibility that the development would increase the likelihood of permission being sought for the “repowering” of the nearby Lambrigg Wind farm by the erection of larger replacement turbines. In response to re-consultation, the Council makes no comment on the noise assessment report. The Council questioned the enforceability of an earlier version of a condition relating to the shutdown of turbine 1 if the mortality of black-headed gulls exceeded a certain level. This condition has now been superseded see response from RSPB.

Page 17 Dent Parish Council The Parish Council objects to the application on the following grounds: • The adverse visual impact of the turbines on the landscape at the gateway to the Western Dales. The turbines will be visible from the Howgills, Barbon and Casterton Fells, Scout Scar, Grayrigg and Whinfell Beacon. The impact on the Yorkshire Dales National Park and its possible extension is of particular concern being in conflict with the remoteness, uninterrupted views and tranquillity the area currently provides. • As the gateway to the Yorkshire Dales National Park, the Council is also concerned about the impact on tourism and the local economy. The area relies heavily on tourism and the reason people visit the area will be compromised.

Old Hutton Parish Council The Council has voted not to support the application on the grounds of the visual effects on the surrounding areas.

Casterton Parish Council Casterton Parish Council is strongly opposed to the application on the following grounds: • The site is within an area of great scenic beauty and construction of further wind farms so close to the Yorkshire Dales National Park should not be permitted, especially as a final decision on the boundary extensions has yet to be made. Even with existing boundaries, the gateways to the National Parks will be compromised by this development. • There are many visitors as well as local people who visit this area and such a massive intrusion into the landscape would degrade the leisure experience of walkers, horse-riders and others taking outdoor exercise and recreation, including users of Killington Lake. • The turbines will have a very serious visual impact on extensive parts of the glorious Howgill Fells and the upper reaches of the Lune Valley. The impact of such an enormous industrial site would be seen over a very large area including all the fells to the east and west of the Lune Valley between Fox’s Pulpit and the villages to the north of Kirkby Lonsdale. • Killington Lake is an important staging post and migration route for birds, including the osprey, and will pose and unacceptable risk to them. • There would be a much-increased cumulative impact of this proposal, with the Lambrigg wind farm and the Armistead development currently under construction. • Wind farms add very little to our energy security and are almost useless at reducing CO2 emissions. It is worth noting that the nearby Lambrigg wind farm is one of the worst performing in England due in part to its poor location. The negative impacts entirely outweigh the meagre positive benefits that might arise from this wind farm.

Page 18 • The NPPF’s presumption in favour of sustainable development is qualified with the words: unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. • Both the Structure Plan and the Local Plan require the benefits of renewable energy to outweigh any significant adverse impacts on the landscape, nature conservation and archaeological and geographical interests.

Reiterates its original comments in response to re-consultation.

Mansergh Parish Meeting The people of Mansergh object to the proposal to build another wind farm at Killington Lake. They feel more turbines will have a detrimental effect on the beauty of the countryside. We would urge you to listen to the majority of people who oppose the wind farm as we feel there is already enough industrialisation in the Lune Valley.

Grayrigg Parish Meeting The Parish Meeting objects to the wind farm for the following reasons: • The turbines will be visible from the Howgills, Middleton, Barbon & Casterton Fells, Scout Scar, Grayrigg, Whinfell Beacon and elsewhere. • Conflict with the special qualities of these areas – the sense of remoteness, endless uninterrupted views and tranquillity. • Impact on the setting of the Yorkshire Dales National Park and its possible extension, less than 1km away. • Huge turbines will be dominating and intimidating. • Proliferation of wind farms in the narrow corridor between the two National Parks. • Cumulative impact with Lambrigg and Armistead wind farms. • Impact on tourism: Junction 37 is a gateway to the Lakes and the gateway to the western Dales. • Disastrous impact on birds – Killington Lake is a key staging point in their migration, including ospreys. • Impact on the Lake as a major local leisure facility for sailors, canoeists, wind surfers, fishermen, and users of the Killington Service Station. • Impact on Fox’s Pulpit, a place of quiet contemplation and the birthplace of the Quaker Movement and visibility from Brigflatts, the oldest meeting House in the north. • Nearby Lambrigg is one of the worst performing wind farms in the north, and Killington will be similar as it is in a wind shadow. • Minimal electricity production and little CO2 savings cannot outweigh damage to the landscape. • Possible pollution of the Lake as has already occurred at the Armistead site.

Page 19 • The wider community is against it and so it is contrary to the concept at the heart of “Localism”.

Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority (YDNP) The site is located approximately 3km from the western boundary of the National Park and just 700 metres from the proposed boundary should the YDNP be extended. The site is visible from Howgill Lane in Sedbergh and the land levels rise rapidly up to Brant Fell and the southern Howgill Fells, where the site forms part of panoramic views of the landscape. There are also high vantage points within the landscape to the south of the site from which the turbines are likely to be visible, including Calf Top and Cragg Hill. The development would be visible from parts of Sedbergh, Millthrop and Brigflatts and the road and rights of way network between these settlements. Further to the east, the tops of the Lambrigg turbines can be seen from Garsdale Head. The proposed turbines would be more visible from this location as they would be 60 metres taller. The two considerations of greatest relevance to the YDNP are landscape impact and impact on heritage. The Authority is opposed to the turbines for the following reasons: • The application site is in close proximity to the western boundary of the existing National Park and should the boundary extension go ahead, would be the closest windfarm to the Park to have been considered to date. The height of the turbines at 130 metres would also be significantly greater than those at the adjacent site at Lambrigg and would be visible within an extremely sensitive part of the landscape of the National Park. • The proposed turbines would be visible from a number of high ground vantage points, including Public Rights of Way on the Howgill Fells to the north used by large number of people who visit the National Park to enjoy the natural beauty of the landscape. Baugh Fell above Garsdale is also accessed by rights of way and affords views of the site with the backdrop of the Lake District National Park and within the context of Sedbergh and the fells to the south. The Calf Top and Cragg Hill to the west and south west of Dent are in line of site to the south west of the sight and the land levels drop away rapidly towards Killington and the lake. • The proposal would result in a significant impact on the nature of the landscape from these views. Whilst the visual impact assessment contends that the views would be moderately or slightly affected, the remote nature of these elevated positions ensures that 130 metres high turbines would be a striking visual feature from a number of these vantage points. • Whilst it is accepted that views from lower ground near Millthrop, Briggflatts and from within the Sedbergh Conservation Area would be within the context of existing development, this is not considered to compensate for the height of the proposed turbines. At 60 metres taller than the adjacent wind farm at Lambrigg, the proposed turbines would be a defining feature on the skyline and would appear unrelated to the scale of any existing development. • The report acknowledges that the Southern Howgills are highly sensitive and that the proposal would have a demonstrable impact on views from the southern section of the character area. However, in assessing the impact on

Page 20 the panoramic views gained from the high level vantage points, the Environmental Statement (ES ) suggests that despite being a 'noticeable feature,' the turbines would not dominate the landscape from these views. • The steep gradient of the valleys to the south ensures that the tall scale of the turbines could be placed in context. However, this context is provided by a natural and sparse landscape and so it is considered that enjoyment of the panoramic views would be adversely affected by the proposed development. The ES is also considered to underestimate the impact of the development on the Howgills by suggesting that the significant change in the character area would be restricted to the southern section. Whilst the development would be most visible from the southern slopes of Winder and The Calf, they would also be visible from the Howgills further north. Should the National Park boundary be extended, the height of the development would have a greater impact on the landscape than a “low magnitude of change” concluded in the ES. • In the 'walk over survey' which assesses the impact on rights of way heading north of Sedbergh, the impact of the turbines from Brant Fell is not considered to impact on “primary views”. Whilst the closest views are of Sedbergh, the rapid elevation in land levels ensures that the views looking west to the Lake District National Park and the coast beyond are important in understanding the character of the landscape and should not be given less weight. • The report assesses the cumulative impact of the development alongside the existing wind farm at Lambrigg and others further afield. The ES suggests that the existing turbines form part of the character of the landscape when viewed from the Southern Howgills and as a result the proposals would not be detrimental to the quality of the wide ranging views. This assessment is unconvincing given that the addition of further wind turbines would increase the amount of prominent development from these views (particularly given the height of the proposal) and therefore further weaken the natural and undeveloped character of the fells. • The visual impact assessment is limited in its ability to assess the impact of the turbines on the landscape by restricting the radius to 10 km from the site. For example, the fact that the majority of the rights of way providing access to the Three Peaks are beyond this radius ensures that the impact of the development on this popular visitor route is not assessed. In addition, when assessing the impact on the Frostrow Fells and the upper Howgills, the 10km limit is implied to be the limit at which there could be a significant visual impact. • Given the 130 metres height of the proposed turbines and the dramatic rise in land levels to the Fells to the north, east and south of the site within the existing National Park boundary, the scope of the visual impact assessment is not sufficient to demonstrate that there would not be a detrimental impact on the character of the Yorkshire Dales landscape. • The impact of the proposed turbines on the setting of the Sedbergh and Dent Conservation Areas is not considered by the ES. The omission of Sedbergh is particularly significant because of the height of the proposed development and the impact that this would have on the setting of the Conservation Area, especially when viewed from Garsdale to the east.

Page 21 • The ES is also considered to be limited in terms of the assessment of designated monuments, one of which is in the existing Park boundary (Castlehaw Tower, Sedbergh), a second would be if the boundary were extended (Middleton Hall). Given the 130 metres height of the proposed turbines, it is considered that photomontages of these sites would be required (with the visible elements of the scheme imposed) to fully assess the impact on the significance of these historic assets.

Conclusions • The ES submitted with the planning application underestimates the landscape impact of the proposed development. The report does acknowledge the sensitivity of the landscape areas, particularly the Howgills, but suggests that the impact from affected views is reduced when viewed within the context of the existing turbines at Lambrigg. Given that the neighbouring turbines are 60 metres lower than the proposed development, it is considered that this assessment is not entirely accurate. • The steep gradient of the fells within the affected part of the National Park allow extensive open views of the sparse landscape. The introduction of three wind turbines at 130 metres in height would be intrusive to the sensitivity of this landscape and would harm the sense of remoteness and tranquillity of the environment. The proposal would be detrimental to the enjoyment of visitors using the extensive right of way network and as such would be contrary to the second purpose of the National Park Authority.

Recommendations 1. That the District Council be advised that the Authority objects to the proposed Killington wind turbines on the grounds that the development would have a seriously harmful impact on the natural beauty of the National Park landscape, and its enjoyment by visitors. It is considered that there is insufficient detail to assess the impact of the proposed development on the historic environment within the National Park. The proposals do not therefore accord with the second statutory purpose of the National Park or Section 11 of the NPPF. 2. That the District Council be reminded of its legal obligation under S11A of the National Parks and Countryside Act 1949 to have regard to National Park purposes.

Lake District National Park Authority I note that the application is now for three turbines whereas the original discussion was around a proposal for five. This reduction in number I would see as positive. I think there are issues for the Yorkshire Dales National Park to address but for us the effects are not significant. There are no particularly sensitive views of the National Park from the approaches to it from this direction and distance mitigates visual impacts in views from viewpoints within the existing boundary. The viewing distance out from within our boundary is significantly reduced if the candidates east extension is designated but the only views which would be significantly affected are from the area near Dillicar Common. Here

Page 22 the site is seen in conjunction with the existing Lambrigg windfarm but there is sufficient separation for it to be seen as a separate feature. The two sites are however close enough to be seen within the same view and this has both positive and negative effects. The positive is that the visual effects are contained within a fairly narrow angle of view. The negative is that cumulative impacts need to be taken into account. I do not consider views out from the Lake District National Park at this point to be particularly sensitive. The Killington site sits in a shallow saddle on the skyline rather than being ‘sat up’ on a ridge which would increase their prominence. My only concern with the proposal is the height of the turbines. At 132 metres to blade tip height there may be problems where they are seen in conjunction with Lambrigg windfarm where the turbines are 70 metres to blade tip height. The differences in height, blade length and rotation speed has the potential to appear visually chaotic. The height and blade diameter of the turbines also has the potential to alter the scale of the landscape by confusing perspective. Views from the (candidate) National Park in this direction are of a series of ridges diminishing in size as they disappear into the distance. Introducing vertical features of this size can alter the perception of distance and this will have a negative effect. With this in mind I would also comment that the reduction in number of turbines from five to three might have had a greater beneficial effect had the reduction been in the height of the turbines rather than the number so that the contrast in scale with Lambrigg windfarm and with the receiving landscape generally were less problematic. However my concerns are limited and I do not consider that they justify an objection to the application. I would though urge SLDC to consider the issues I have raised as part of the assessment process.

Cumbria County Council The County Council objects to the turbines due to adverse landscape and visual effects which are not outweighed by the environmental benefits associated with the renewable energy generation and carbon savings which would arise from this scheme. The proposal does not accord with saved policies R44 and E37 of the Structure Plan and the development principles of the Cumbria Sub-Regional Spatial Strategy (SRSS). The key issues raised by this application are: • whether the development creates a significant detrimental effect on the landscape character, biodiversity and the natural and built heritage. • whether there is an unacceptable level of cumulative impact due to its proximity to other operational and consented wind energy developments. • whether the development creates significant adverse effects on local amenity, the local economy, highways, aircraft operations or telecommunications. • whether the renewable energy contribution and other social, environmental and economic benefits of the proposal outweigh any adverse effects.

Landscape Effects The site lies in the open countryside, although the immediate area shows the influence of modern development, including the Lambrigg Wind Farm, the M6, the motorway service area and Roan Edge Quarry. Conifer plantations to the east add

Page 23 to this utilitarian influence. The characteristic, undulating landform of the area serves to contain the development site to a degree to the north, west and north east. To the south and south west, views are more open across the reservoir. Within 2km of a site, good practice guidance recognises that wind farms will be a dominant focus in the wider landscape. To the north, the landscape type is primarily Upland Fringes and, according to the SPD, has a low/moderate capacity to accommodate a small group (3-5) and, exceptionally, a large group of turbines (6-9). Within 2km of the site the effects of the turbines are likely to be significant and it is important to note that the SPD highlights views towards the Howgill Fells from the A684 and the M6 as a particular sensitivity of this landscape type. Both roads lie within 2km. Beyond this, the applicant’s Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) assessment indicates relatively little visibility of the turbines. To the south, much of the landscape is designated as Rolling Farmland and Heath (sub-type 9b) by the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit. The SPD advises that this landscape type has moderate capacity to accommodate up to a small group of turbines. The ZTV indicates that the turbines may be visible across much of this landscape type. Part of the eastern area of sub-type 9b falls within the area subject a Variation Order for the extension of the Yorkshire Dales National Park (YDNP), although the ZTV assessment suggests that visibility would be limited within this area. Beyond 2km, there is scope to accommodate wind energy development but the SPD advises that constraints in 9b include the potential for intrusion on adjacent major valleys and views from the western Howgills. The valleys and fells in question lie to the east of the site and this area is designated as Broad Valleys (landscape sub-type 8b); the majority lies within the area subject to the Variation Order. Landscape type 8 has, according to the SPD, a low/moderate capacity to accommodate turbine development. Valley landscapes are typically sensitive to turbines because of their scenic richness, variety of natural and historic features, complex and irregular land use patterns, settlement pattern, and concentration of tourist routes and facilities. Turbines can often appear dominant in such contexts, particularly where valleys are tightly enclosed. In this case, the turbines will be visible across a notable area of the valley landscape to the east and would often appear as a prominent skyline feature. Views from the Rawthey Valley, for instance, are channelled west, directly towards the proposed turbines. The turbines would have a dominant effect upon the valley landscape and would detract from its inherent character. The impact is compounded due to the sensitivity of this area, as either National Park, or National Park quality landscape. Further to the east, and to the north of the site, lie the high fells. These include areas currently within the YDNP (southern Howgills, Frostrow and Baugh Fells), areas subject to the Variation Order for inclusion in the YDNP (Middleton and Barbon Fells and northern Howgills) and the Lake District National Park (Whinfell). High fell areas are generally regarded as being highly sensitive to wind energy development because of their characteristic lack of development and strong sense of wildness, remoteness and openness; the National Park quality of the fells affected compounds this sensitivity. The ZTV assessment indicates that the turbines would be visible across a relatively large proportion of the fells. From the upper reaches, where views are panoramic, the applicant’s opinion is that the turbines would form part of the wider panorama, occupying only a relatively small proportion of the overall view, thereby limiting their impact. This is considered to be an appropriate assessment.

Page 24 From the lower reaches, however, views become more restricted and the turbines become more prominent as a skyline feature. The turbines would be seen in the context of the sensitive valley landscape, detracting from its inherent character. This impact has been underestimated by the applicant.

Visual Effects Thirteen individual properties or clusters have been identified within 2km of the site and the impacts upon these receptors have been assessed by the applicant as being no more than moderate. Whilst this assessment is robust for the main part, the impact on Moorcock Hall, which directly faces the site at a distance of 1.2km, has been underestimated, as has the impact on the motorway service area. The turbines would dominate the view, adversely affecting the amenity of visitors to the area. A number of settlements lie within 6.4km of the site, wherein the SPD states that turbines are likely to be a prominent element in the landscape. The majority of these settlements are screened by topography and/or vegetation and the most significant effects are likely to be experienced by residents of parts of Sedbergh from where the turbines will be visible as a skyline feature. Views from the rights of way in the immediate vicinity of the site will be seen in the context of a landscape that includes major infrastructure and development. The turbines will, however, be visible from the footpath network to the east, which provides access to the fells, and the slopes of the Lune Valley. The lower lying routes may be screened to a degree by vegetation, but the turbines will become increasingly dominant upon the character of the valley landscape as views become more channelled. The higher level routes will afford clear views towards the site. The ZTV assessment indicates that the turbines will be visible for a 10km stretch of the M6, although in actuality, views are likely to be intermittent, restricted by vegetation and buildings. The impact will be most substantial in close proximity to Junction 37; the northernmost turbine will be sited on a hill some 300 metres from the motorway junction. The turbines will have a dominant effect on motorists at this point. As this is the exit taken by many visitors to the Yorkshire Dales and the Lake District, the sensitivity of these motorists as visual receptors should be regarded as higher than would typically be the case.

Cumulative Effects Lambrigg Wind Farm lies 1.2km to the north and the Armistead Wind Farm, currently under construction, is located 4.7km to the south. Both the Killington and Lambrigg developments would be visible to motorists travelling in both directions on the M6 between the service area and Lambrigg Moor. Whilst this relates to only a relatively short section, the impact of both schemes will be highly dominant upon motorists in this location, particularly those exiting at Junction 37. In terms of the impact upon the wider landscape, all three developments will be visible from the high fells to the east. This will increase the overall proportion of the panoramic views from these fells which is occupied by wind turbine development. The SPD advises that older developments, comprising smaller turbines, can exacerbate the impact of newer schemes by emphasising their relative height. The Killington turbines are significantly taller (88%) than those at Lambrigg. This may serve to exacerbate the cumulative impact of Killington. It is considered that the

Page 25 applicant’s opinion – that from where simultaneous cumulative effects are apparent, the impact is likely to be moderate – is an appropriate assessment.

Highways There are no highway-related objections to the wind farm. Being adjacent to a motorway junction, vehicular access to the site is relatively straightforward.

Archaeology Records indicate that the site lies in an area of some archaeological potential and the development has been designed to avoid a number of earthwork remains of possible interest. The area around turbine 2, however, has the potential to contain palaeo- environmental deposits with information on historic environmental and climatic conditions. The peat disturbed by the construction of turbine 2 should be subject to a programme of archaeological borehole assessment secured through a condition attached to the planning permission, should consent be granted. No additional comments on re-consultation.

Energy Contribution National policy encourages the use of renewable energy sources to offset greenhouse gas emissions and the increasing reliance on imported energy supplies. The Climate Change Act requires a 26% cut in carbon emissions by 2020, rising to 80% by 2050 (based on 1990 levels). The 2009 Renewable Energy Strategy seeks to deliver European-set targets that will increase renewable energy generation to cover 15% of the UK’s energy needs. To achieve the ten-fold increase, substantial additional renewable electricity production will be required. The Government sees an expansion of wind energy capacity, both on- and off-shore, as key to meeting these targets. National and regional planning policies support the development of renewable energy projects. The NPPF contains guidance on the need for local authorities to support and encourage low carbon energy proposals that do not cause unacceptable harm to the local environment. The Regional Spatial Strategy contains a target for on-shore wind development in Cumbria to provide 210MW of installed capacity by 2012 rising to 247.5MW by 2015. There are currently 18 operational schemes in Cumbria and 5 more with consent (these figures excluded single turbine schemes). Together these will have an installed capacity of around 140MW. The Killington scheme would contribute an additional 10.2MW. To assist in decision-making on issues such as landscape character, the Wind Energy SPD was adopted in 2007. The capacity assessment findings of the SPD have been taken into account when considering this scheme. The importance of supporting renewable energy proposals is reflected in saved Structure Plan Policy R44. Schemes will be considered favourably where no significant adverse effects arise with issues such as landscape character and local amenity. However, when considering whether any such effects arise, significant weight also needs to given to the environmental, economic and energy benefits that might arise from a scheme.

Page 26 Conclusion • National planning policy promotes targets for renewable energy and looks to LPAs to support proposals for renewable energy developments which do not have unacceptable impacts. • Saved Policy R44 of the Structure Plan supports favourable consideration of renewable energy schemes if there are no significant adverse effects on landscape character, built heritage, local amenity and a range of other issues. Saved Policy E37 refers to landscape character, saved Policy E38 to the historic environment and saved Policy E35 to nature conservation interests. • The proposal raises conflict with Policies E37 and R44. The development would create adverse landscape and visual impacts, notably upon the sensitive high fell and valley landscapes to the east which either lie within a National Park or which, as areas subject to a Variation Order, are of National Park quality. These effects outweigh the wider benefits associated with the generation of renewable energy. • An objection is raised against this scheme as it is contrary to saved policies of the Structure Plan and the general development principles of the Cumbria Sub-Regional Strategy

In response to re-consultation regarding new photomontages they made the following comments:

Photomontage Update It is noted that the photomontages submitted in support of this application have been updated. It is clear from a review of this information, and following the construction of the Armistead wind farm, that the original photomontages were inaccurate, and underrepresented the potential cumulative impact of the scheme alongside the aforementioned Armistead development. Cumbria County Council’s original assessment of this proposal (January 2013) highlighted concerns in regard to its landscape and visual impact. The revised photomontages therefore serve to confirm these concerns; in particular in regard to the cumulative impact of the proposal upon users of the M6 – to which the Armistead development will clearly contribute. The operational Lambrigg and Armistead developments appear notably clearer and larger in the field than they do in a number of the photomontages. This serves to illustrate the inherent limitations of the 50mm focal length photomontage approach – recommended by the 2006 Scottish Natural Heritage Guidance ‘Visual Representation of Wind Farms: Good Practice Guidance’ – which has been applied by the applicant. The SNH guidance is widely used, but has been the subject of criticism on grounds that it can lead to an underrepresentation of turbines in the landscape (most notably by the Highland Council, who have subsequently produced their own guidance), and is currently the subject of review. Whilst the photomontages give a reasonable indication of the likely landscape and visual effects of the development, as the applicant acknowledges (Environmental Statement, Part 2, pp

Page 27 54-55), they are limited in terms of their accuracy. This should be borne in mind in the assessment of the scheme.

Changes to Policy In the period since the submission of Cumbria County Council’s original comments (4 th January 2013), the North West Regional Spatial Strategy has been revoked. The policies of the Cumbria Joint Structure Plan saved alongside the RSS therefore no longer form part of the Development Plan for South Lakeland. In July 2013, the Department for Communities and Local Government published ‘Planning Practice Guidance for Renewable and Low Carbon Energy’ . The guidance provides advice on the planning issues associated with the development of renewable energy. Whilst the statutory policy base has changed, the assessment undertaken for the 3 rd January County Council Development Control and Regulation Committee remains consistent with current strategic policy – most notably the NPPF and its supporting guidance. ‘Planning Practice Guidance for Renewable and Low Carbon Energy’ clarifies (Paragraph 1) that the guidance should be read alongside other planning practice guidance and the NPPF. The approach outlined by the guidance should therefore be given material weight in the assessment of this scheme. Paragraph 5 of the guidance states that ‘The National Planning Policy Framework explains that all communities have a responsibility to help increase the use and supply of green energy, but this does not mean that the need for renewable energy automatically overrides environmental protections and the planning concerns of local communities’. Paragraph 8 goes on to state that ‘…local planning authorities will need to ensure they take into account the requirements of the technology and critically, the potential impacts on the local environment, including from cumulative impacts. The views of local communities likely to be affected should be listened to’. Paragraph 9 notes that landscape character areas could form the basis for considering the location and scale of renewable energy developments, with local level assessments highlighted as an appropriate scale for assessing the likely landscape and visual impacts of individual proposals. Guidance in regard to wind energy developments in Cumbria is contained in the Cumbria Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), which was adopted by South Lakeland District Council as supplementary guidance to its Core Strategy in 2012. The SPD includes a detailed landscape capacity assessment, which highlights the key characteristics and particular sensitivities which inform the potential capacity of different landscape areas to support wind energy development. This has been developed to enable a consistent and holistic approach to be taken when considering the effects of wind energy development on the distinctive and often high quality landscape character of Cumbria. The SPD addresses the concurrent needs, outlined in the NPPF and supporting guidance, for local planning authorities to prepare positive strategies in regard to renewable energy development, and conserve and enhance valued landscapes. The approach underpinning the SPD is explained in Part 1, paragraph 1.22, which states ‘It is important that we look favourably on wind energy development that does not

Page 28 cause unacceptable harm to our built and natural environment. When preparing wind energy proposals, a range of environmental, social and economic effects need to be considered’. Recent appeal decisions (Weddicar Rigg Wind Farm, Inspector’s Report, 7 th October 2013, paragraphs 17 and 186) confirm the continuing relevance of the SPD, and its consistence with the July 2013 guidance. The SPD was used as the primary tool in the assessment of the Killington proposal in late 2012. The NPPF and Cumbria Sub-Regional Strategy (which remains a relevant material consideration as the spatial planning framework for Cumbria’s Community Strategy) were also referred to in this assessment. The County Council’s original comments therefore comply with the current policy framework.

Eden District Council Does not wish to comment on original and subsequent consultations.

Craven District Council No objection to proposal.

SLDC Environmental Protection Officer Confirms that the scope and undertaking of the acoustic assessment which the applicant has submitted to form part of this application, and that in my opinion the noise emissions will be within the acceptable limits described in ETSU-R-97. Requests that in order to ensure that noise emissions remain within acceptable limits to protect the amenity of residents living in the area where the wind farm is to be located conditions be attached relating to construction works and operational noise.

Natural England Protected landscapes The proposal is approximately 2.8km from the Yorkshire Dales National Park (YDNP) boundary. It therefore lies within its setting and has the potential to have an impact on views towards and from within the Park. Having considered the submitted documents Natural England objects to the wind farm; it is considered that there has not been a sufficiently comprehensive assessment of the impact of the proposal on the surrounding landscape and its implications for the purposes of the Park, for which it is designated. The specific objections are set out below: 1. The Environmental Statement refers to the NPPF but does not acknowledge paragraph 115 which states that “great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, the Broads and areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty”. This guidance is highly relevant to this proposal because of the proximity of the YDNP and also because much of the land between the Park boundary and the proposal is subject to a Designation (Variation) Order which was signed in January 2012 and is currently awaiting confirmation by the Secretary of State.

Page 29 2. The Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit identifies the site as falling within landscape character sub-type 9b – rolling farmland and heath. The Cumbria Wind Energy SPD identifies the 9b area as having “moderate” capacity for wind turbines and recommends an appropriate scale of development would be a small group of 3-5 turbines. It is worth noting that the Armistead Wind Farm, comprising 6 turbines, is currently under construction and falls within the same landscape character sub-type (9b). Killington is also very close to the Lambrigg turbines and seen from much of this landscape type, the two sites would appear as a single unit of 8 turbines from many angles. Consequently, the landscape capacity of sub-type 9b will be exceeded. 3. An appeal in respect of three turbines at Sillfield, also within landscape sub- type 9b, was dismissed on a number of grounds, including cumulative landscape and visual impacts when considered alongside the Armistead scheme. Given that the Armistead turbines, the Lambrigg turbines and the proposed Killington turbines will be visible together from various highly sensitive viewpoints, it is considered that the Environmental Statement underestimates the cumulative impacts of the proposed scheme. 4. The cumulative ZTV (Zone of Theoretical Visibility) maps only show the Killington turbines and one other wind farm per map. It is therefore not possible to fully appreciate the extent to which more than two wind farms will be observed from a given viewpoint or to gauge their impact. For example, from parts of Baugh Fell (within the YDNP) it will be possible to see the proposed turbines with Caton Moor, Armistead, Claughton, Kirkby Moor and Lambrigg wind farms ; however, five different maps have to be viewed in order to work this out. As a result, the in-combination and cumulative impacts on the quality of recreation experience available, on both open access land and rights of way within the YDNP (particularly the Three Peaks area) and on the fells adjacent to the YDNP, such as Middleton Fell and Barbon and Casterton Fells have been underestimated. Despite the distance, the special qualities of the YDNP including tranquillity, remoteness and extensive uncluttered views will be affected in the western YDNP; and the higher than normal sensitivity of recreation users to tall man-made structures in or visible from National Parks, is underestimated. The impact on recreation in the National Park and the area subject to the Designation Variation order has been underestimated. 5. The ZTV maps for the proposed turbines only indicate their visibility within a 10km area. Limiting the assessment area to a 10km radius from the site has resulted in highly sensitive key receptors, lying outside the 10km radius but within the YDNP, not being identified.

Proposed boundary changes to the Yorkshire Dales and Lake District National Parks The application site is located immediately adjacent to an area that is included within a tract of land subject to an Order varying the boundaries of the YDNP and close to a tract of land varying the boundaries of the Lake District NP. It is expected that the Secretary of State will make a statement shortly regarding the way forward, which is likely to include a Public Inquiry. If the Order is confirmed, the area in question will be a National Park for planning purposes.

Page 30 In the meantime, it is Natural England’s expectation that the area now being subject to a National Park Variation Order and thus deemed to meet the requirements for designation will be treated as a material consideration and the evidence in support of the Order will be considered relevant in determining any impact of the proposed development on the special qualities of the area. Development should not be allowed which would prejudice this area as a National Park.

Ornithology The proposal, as submitted, does not properly assess impacts on the large Black- headed Gull colony present on the reservoir. However, at the request of the applicant, Natural England will not be commenting in detail on the ornithological survey work submitted with the planning application. This is because the applicant intends to submit further assessment work on the disturbance-displacement impact on the Black-headed Gull roost. Once this additional information is submitted, Natural England will assess all the ornithological surveys, mitigation and compensation proposals. No assumptions should be made that the investigations into disturbance of the Black-headed Gull colony from the development will address all Natural England’s concerns.

Killington Reservoir The Reservoir is a County Wildlife Site consisting of a large area of open water and valley mire. It is particularly important for passage and wintering wildfowl, passage waders and roosting gulls. Ospreys have also been recorded within the site. Policy CS8.4 (Biodiversity and Geodiversity) of the South Lakeland Core Strategy seeks to ensure that development proposals will not have a direct or indirect adverse effect on local designated sites considered to have biodiversity value. This Policy is highly relevant to the proposed wind farm given the proximity of all three turbines to the County Wildlife Site and bird species within it. Updated response dated 17 October 2013

Summary - Objection Natural England has assessed this application and has identified a likely significant impact on the purposes of designation of the Yorkshire Dales National Park. We are therefore objecting to this development.

Effects on the Landscape Character Areas in the Yorkshire Dales National Park The ES identifies five local landscape character types (LCT) within the Yorkshire Dales National Park, and within 10 kilometres of the proposal, for the assessment. We have focused our advice on LCT 6, Southern Howgill Fells, due to its upland character, proximity to the site (5 km) and long, open views out over the surrounding character areas. It also, notably, has panoramic views over the proposed site from the peaks of Winder and The Calf. This area has been identified as having “very high” sensitivity within the applicant’s LVIA. The LVIA states that, visibility of the Killington turbines would be generally limited to the eastern slopes and peaks of the fells in this character area and, where visible, the turbines would be seen in the same section of the view as the existing Lambrigg

Page 31 turbines. It goes on to say that, “the turbines would be a noticeable feature visible from the character area, but views of the turbines would not become a defining element of the character of the area” (6.184). The ES states at 6.185 that there would be a substantial/moderate to moderate effect on parts of the Southern Howgill Fells character area, reducing as distance increases from the proposal. All these effects are considered to be significant effects on landscape character, within the LVIA, and Natural England considers this is an appropriate conclusion. We also note (6.353) that the cumulative magnitude of impact from the proposal, Armistead and Lambrigg turbines on the Southern Howgill Fells is acknowledged as being greater than the proposal alone. Whilst the applicant does not consider that this increases the overall level of effect (substantial/moderate) they conclude that the effect remains significant, which is clearly logical. As views from this area already contain Lambrigg and Armistead windfarms we believe the cumulative impact of another wind farm, especially one in closer proximity than the existing windfarms, would be detrimental to the character of this area. It would reinforce the disruptive element wind turbines already provide and increase their impact on the landscape character. At this point, it is useful to reiterate that paragraph 115 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that “great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks… which have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty”. Consequently we consider that the above planning policy and the conclusion of a significant impact, alone and cumulatively on the Southern Howgill Fells character type within the YDNP, indicates this development is not appropriate in this location.

Visual effects within YDNP (Southern Howgill Fells) Viewpoints 8 and 17 are located within the YDNP and specifically within the Southern Howgill Fells local landscape character type. The ES considers that views from these locations will be impacted by the proposal and will be of sufficient magnitude to result in a significant effect. Natural England agrees with this conclusion. In addition, viewpoints A – E with accompanying photomontages were also submitted in order to further consider impacts on the National Park; these viewpoints are situated on the fells north of Sedbergh. Having considered these additional viewpoints we advise that we cannot find individual assessments of impact, as for VPs 8 and 17, but have identified some commentary in the design evolution chapter of the ES. Here (3.31) viewpoints A-E are considered to demonstrate that, the proposal is either largely obscured or can be accommodated into the landscape without forming an incongruous feature, especially when considered in collaboration with the existing man-made features such as Armistead and Lambrigg windfarm and the M6 motorway. We note that the turbines are obscured fully at viewpoint A but are visible in the remaining four viewpoints. Having now reviewed the photomontages for these viewpoints, and visited some of the footpaths below Winder in early September, we consider that the impact in this area has been underestimated. Given the proximity of

Page 32 the additional viewpoints to either VP 8 or VP 17, where a significant effect is expected (Table 6.8), we cannot concur with the conclusion that the turbines, can be accommodated into the landscape. Recreational users in this area will experience a very strong landscape character with open, rural, panoramic views towards the proposed site. As the photomontages show, the turbines will be clearly visible against the skyline from lower vantage points and against the rural background from higher points. They will also be visible in the middle distance and will form a focal point in views out over the rural, rolling countryside thus interrupting panoramic views over the surrounding landscape. These panoramic views include long views to the Lake District National Park, with its high fells forming a distinctive feature of the skyline in the distance. The proposed turbines would provide a distraction in views towards the Lake District, hindering the indivisibility between the two National Parks and providing a middle distance focal point which distracts views away from the long sweeping panoramas to the Lake District. This is especially relevant when considering the cumulative impacts. Consequently, we consider that the impact on recreational users has been underestimated. Also of relevance are the special qualities of the YDNP which include tranquillity, remoteness and extensive uncluttered views which we consider will be affected in the western part of the Park by this proposal and, ultimately, will conflict with its purposes of designation.

Assessment of all YDNP viewpoints Three different sensitivity ratings have been used for the YDNP viewpoints (7, 8, 15, 17 and 19) ranging from medium to very high. The viewpoints at a higher elevation (VP8, VP17) have been given a “very high” sensitivity rating and lower viewpoints given a lower sensitivity rating respectively. The magnitude of change has been assessed as predominantly “medium” meaning the proposal will result in the introduction of notable new features into the landscape and/or a notable change to the… perceptual attributes of the landscape (Appendix 13.1). Consequently, the LVIA concludes a moderate effect at all five viewpoints and considers that this effect will be significant at four of the five viewpoints within the National Park. We therefore advise that the LVIA provides compelling evidence for refusing the proposal on the grounds of significant effects to the Yorkshire Dales National Park.

Assessment of YDNP extension land viewpoints VP 2 and VP6 are both on the boundary of the proposed extension to the YDNP and as such should be considered highly sensitive viewpoints. We note that VP2, situated on the A684 at a junction with a public right of way (PROW), has been assigned a high sensitivity but VP6 has not and the accompanying assessment (Appendix 13.3) does not refer to it being located on the extension land boundary. We visited VP2 during our recent site visit and agree that the conclusion of a significant visual effect at this point is appropriate; this is clearly a relevant

Page 33 material consideration for your Authority and we refer you to our advice below on the consideration of the National Park Variation Order in your determination process. Turning to VP6, having used the assigned grid reference (Table 6.8) to check the location of the NP extension land boundary and having visited the location in September, we advise that the viewpoint is on a quiet lane with a rural landscape character and is likely to be used by numerous recreational users including cyclists, walkers and horse riders. Appendix 13.1 outlines the sensitivity criteria used in the assessment and identifies that: users of …minor roads which appear to be used frequently for recreational activities or the specific enjoyment of the landscape would be given a high sensitivity rating. Consequently, we believe the outlined criteria does justify a classification of highly sensitive viewpoint and so consider the current rating to be incorrect. A “high” rating would therefore increase the significance of visual effect to moderate/slight. It is also worth noting that, at this location, there would be cumulative visual effects from the turbines as they would be seen simultaneously with Lambrigg windfarm and successively with Armistead and Caton Moor windfarms (Table 6.9). In particular, Armistead windfarm is dominant in the view to the west from this point, which may not be fully appreciated from the accompanying wireframe (Fig. 6.26, sheet 3 of 3). We advise that all the other viewpoints assessed within the Yorkshire Dales extension land (9, 14 and 20) have been given a sensitivity rating of “high”; it therefore does seem logical to align the sensitivity of VP6 to this “high” rating.

Effects on land subject to National Park Variation Order The proposed development site falls into two Landscape Character Types; 9b Rolling Farmland and 11b Low Fells and the area is characterised by rolling farmland, woodland and rocky outcrops. The LVIA (section 6.146 -6.147) discusses the effects on landscape character in the immediate surroundings and acknowledges that the proposal will have a “high magnitude of change between 1km and 2km from the site” which will result in a “moderate effect…up to a distance of approximately 2km”. These effects on the immediate character of the site are considered to be significant effects and Natural England agrees with this assessment. This conclusion of a “significant effect” is important to note because the proposal is located approximately 1 kilometre from an area that is included within a tract of land subject to an Order varying the boundaries of the Yorkshire Dales National Park; made under s.5 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, 1949 and submitted for confirmation to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in April 2012. The Order will not take effect unless it is confirmed (with or without modifications) by the Secretary of State. A Public Inquiry was held in June 2013 and a decision from the Secretary of State is expected following submission of the Inspector’s report. If the Order is confirmed by the Secretary of State then the area in question will be: • “National Park” for planning purposes; and

Page 34 • responsibility for strategic planning, development control, listed buildings consents, as well as minerals and waste planning will transfer to the Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority (subject to any transitional arrangements as to transfer of powers and applicability of relevant plans as the Secretary of State may determine). In the meantime it is Natural England’s expectation that the area now being subject to a signed National Park Variation Order and thus deemed by us to meet the requirements for designation, will be treated as a material consideration by the relevant planning authority and the evidence in support of that Order will be considered relevant in determining any impact of the proposed development on the area’s special qualities. This issue is the subject of guidance in Circular No 84 of 1950. Whilst the Circular relates to the original designation of National Parks, it has never expressly been revoked and is still relevant to the interim protection to be afforded to land whilst in the process of designation. The circular states: “It is now specially important that during the interval which must elapse before the Parks can be selected and formally designated, the powers of this (1949) Act and the Act of 1947 should be used in such a way that the development as Parks of the areas ultimately selected should as far as possible not be prejudiced”. We advise that the same considerations apply to this designation proposal. Development should not be allowed which would prejudice this area as National Park.

Response to consultation on new visualisations They have reviewed the updated photomontages on the website (Howgills Walkthrough Photomontages Rev A; and Yor.1925.031 Rev A - Visualisations – Armistead) and can confirm that they do not have any further comments to make in relation to the visual impact from this proposal. They refer the Council to their latest response, dated 17 October 2013, containing their objection to this scheme due to a likely significant impact on the purposes of designation of the Yorkshire Dales National Park.

Royal Society for the Protection of Birds For brevity and clarity only the relevant part of the response dated 20 December 2013 and the final consultation response is included; it is apparent from the response that there has been previous correspondence. 20 December 2013 – Osprey With regard to collision risk for Osprey; we note that URS have as agreed undertaken to record Osprey sightings during their Black-headed Gull surveys in 2013 and that no birds were recorded, this is though just a snapshot of the usage of the site. Despite the Killington Wildlife Group informing me that they have recorded four sighting of five birds on separate occasions utilising the lake during the recent autumn migration we do not feel that these sightings constitute sufficient evidence of a likely risk of collision and we wish to remove our objection to Osprey on the basis of our on-going discussions with Banks Renewables.

Page 35 9 January 2013 – Black-headed Gull As stated in my previous responses; in principle the RSPB support a broad mix of renewable energy schemes, where developments will not significantly impact birds or the habitats on which they depend. This is to enable the UK Government’s energy targets of 15% generation from renewable sources by 2020 to be met, in order to mitigate the effects of climate change which poses the biggest long term threat to wildlife and people. The proposed development does not fall within a defined bird sensitivity area www.rspb.org.uk/northwestrenewables nor is it a designated site SSSI etc. This letter is to formally confirm the RSPB’s position in respect of the above application, the proposed development at Killington Lake and in particular in response to the proposed planning condition; to shut down turbine 1 as detailed in the Black-headed Gull Survey Report – October 2013 (the October report). The RSPB wishes to remove its objection to the proposed scheme for the following reason having had ongoing and useful communication with representatives from Banks Renewables.

Collision Risk for Black-headed Gull There are 3000+ nesting pairs on Killington Lake making it the largest nesting colony in Cumbria and at this level they make up 2.34% of the national population. The colony is therefore of national significance based on established criteria for the selection of biological Sites of Special Scientific Interest, Banks/URS have agreed with this statement in their introduction on page 1 of the October report. From my own observations made on the 25 th of June 2013 and from the information within the October report it is clear that Turbine1 is the potentially most damaging to the Black-headed Gull colony. To adequately mitigate for Black-headed Gull collision, Banks have agreed to a planning condition (below) being placed on the development; Following commencement of operations, Turbine 1 shall be shut down for daytime periods (defined as civil dawn to civil dusk) for the months of May and June for the operational lifetime of the wind farm. Reason - To ensure suitable mitigation for ornithological protection as outlined within the Black-headed Gull Survey Report October 2013. We believe that compliance with this planning condition will reduce the level of collision risk to within acceptable levels and agree that daytime only shutdown is acceptable given the information included within Garthe and Hupopp 2004 which is the only paper we can locate relating to the nocturnal flight activity of Black-headed Gull.

Cumbria Wildlife Trust Whilst it is acknowledged that some steps have been taken to limit the possibility and magnitude of negative impacts upon biodiversity, the Trust is objecting to the application for the following reasons: • The site lies partly within the Killington Reservoir County Wildlife Site (CWS). Such designated sites are areas recognised as being of county, sometimes

Page 36 national, importance for their nature conservation value; this is defined by the presence of important, distinctive and threatened habitats and species. • The Killington Reservoir CWS is partly designated for the mosaic of habitats it incorporates, including a complex of mires, tall herb fen, dry heath, rush pasture and acid grassland. Whilst a 10 metre buffer zone between the turbines and the valley mire has been built into the design of the development, this buffer does not seem to apply to the movement and locating of machinery, equipment and personnel, especially during the construction phase. As a consequence, there is the potential for damage to the mire habitat. • The CWS is of regional importance for wintering wildfowl, passage waders, breeding waders roosting gulls and breeding birds. The Environmental Statement acknowledges that there is a risk of negative impacts upon both breeding waders and Black-headed Gull populations and proposes that mitigation measures be provided off-site. Whilst off-site habitat requirements may be possible it is not possible to guarantee that the birds will use these alternative options. Failure by the Black-headed Gull population to use these alternative sites, combined with the potential high strike rate outlined in the Environmental Statement, could lead to significant losses. If planning permission is granted, additional mitigation measures should be put in place for the important valley mire habitat both within and outside the CWS. These measures, including those proposed for bird populations, should form part of a comprehensive Habitat Management Plan that ensures management of the site positively for nature conservation and monitoring for any negative impacts.

Killington Lake Wildlife Group This is a most inappropriate location for a wind farm on this scale. Consequently, the KLWG objects to the planning application: • The development will have several negative impacts on the wealth of bird life on the reservoir and other important habitats which surround the wind farm site. In addition, the applicant’s Ecological Impact Assessment seriously understates the county and national ornithological importance of the site and adjacent habitats. • Killington Reservoir is the largest area of standing water in south east Cumbria and, together with nearby Lilymere, has long been considered one of the most important bird sites in the county. The reservoir has long stretches of undeveloped shoreline and two largely undisturbed islands which attract a wide variety of breeding wintering and passage birds. In addition, the immediate surrounding area has a diversity of habitats. Lilymere, New Park Mosses and Tarn, Firbank Fell and Killington Reservoir are classified as areas of County Wildlife Interest. Over 180 species of birds have been recorded of which 70 are regular breeders. • The proposed wind farm is situated close to the north shore of the reservoir. The most southerly turbine would be less than 300 metres from an island hosting a major gull colony; a second would be within a few hundred metres of Lilymere; and the third would be about 750 metres from the Lambrigg Wind Farm. Together with the Armistead Wind Farm, the three projects constitute a considerable barrier to birds using and passing through Killington Reservoir.

Page 37 • The turbines will irrevocably damage the wildlife value of this special area. Displacement of breeding waders and waterfowl is inevitable and threatens the viability of the county’s largest and nationally important Black-headed Gull colony. The huge blade sweep of the proposed turbines will be a barrier and a hazard for many species of resident and migrating birds with a collision risk which is difficult to quantify.

In response to re-consultation Members of the Killington Lake Wildlife Group have recently considered the results of the URS/Banks Renewables supplementary report (October 2013) on Black-headed Gull and Osprey activity at the proposed Killington wind farm site. The KLWG wishes to confirm their original OBJECTION to the project (17/01/13) for reasons which are outlined in the notes below. The Killington Lake Wildlife Group have studied the expert analysis of the URS/Banks Renewables supplementary report (October 2013) prepared by Dr Tim Reed of Ecotext (November 2013). We are in full agreement with the limitations, errors and inadequacies of the URS survey methodology, collision risk modelling and conclusions detailed in Dr Reed's appraisal. There can be little confidence in results derived from a turbine collision risk model designed for off-shore wind farms with flawed data input for Black-headed Gulls and no data for Ospreys known to frequent the area. Furthermore, we fully support the main points raised in the recent objection by the STAK group. The KLWG wish to emphasise particular concerns based on many years of survey experience on and around the wind farm site.

1. The 2013 URS Vantage Point The choice of a single vantage point on the western edge of the proposed wind farm site was not appropriate given the complex topography of the site. The wind farm area includes three large drumlin hills separated by two north-south trending valleys with a valley flow to hilltop altitudinal range of over 55 metres. The resultant restrictions to the observers view from the selected vantage point included: i) Approximately 25% of the wind farm site area was not visible from the vantage point, in particular the eastern valley which frequently forms an important flight line for Black-headed Gulls was totally obscured. ii) 90% "of a 100 to 500 metre buffer around the wind farm (as per Natural England 2010)" was obscured by drumlin hills and the elevated M6 motorway immediately east of the vantage point. iii) 45-55% of 100 to 500 metre diameter buffer-area around the location of each individual turbine was not visible from the selected vantage point.

2. Black-headed Gulls Although the URS 2013 Report accepted that their previous study had seriously underestimated the size of the Killington Black-headed Gull colony (591 pairs compared to published figures averaging 3000 pairs over a 15 year period), collision risk estimates of 61-81 birds per annum in 2012 were downgraded to 25-36 birds per

Page 38 annum in the new report. This was due to changes in survey methodology and adjustments to the collision risk modelling procedure. The Killington Lake Wildlife Group had no information about these changes and therefore were unable to test the revised methodology independently. However, the position of the new, single vantage point location was apparent and the limitations of this viewpoint were investigated as outlined previously. Experienced local observers can confirm that the majority of gulls outgoing from the island colony fly at relatively low levels along the two valleys bisecting the wind farm site (the eastern valley is not visible from the 2013 vantage point). However, incoming gulls from a north to east direction descending from higher ground have a more random distribution and height flightpath. The distance from the 2013 vantage point and lack of visibility beyond turbine sites 2 and 3 is likely to have resulted in an underestimate of gulls passing within the turbine collision risk area circumference.

3. Ospreys The URS 2013 Report revised the collision risk estimate from 1 bird every 3.5 years to 1 bird every 33 years. The rationale behind this discrepancy appears to be the lack of sightings in the 2013 survey and discounting 2 of 3 Ospreys recorded by URS surveyors in 2011 which were not seen to fly directly over the wind farm site. In spite of the limited number of birdwatchers visiting Killington, 7 Ospreys were recorded in 2011 and 5 birds in 2013 (3 within the wind farm area). Further birds were seen in the Sedbergh area and the Lune Gorge and there were other unauthenticated reports from fishermen at the reservoir. Additional evidence from radio tagged birds suggest that significant numbers of passage Osprey visit Killington in both spring and autumn seasons. URS Vantage Point Osprey Surveys have failed to meet the recommended NE/SNH time frame of 72 hours for both passage seasons over two years. Furthermore, the use of a single vantage point on the western edge of the wind farm site in 2013 denied URS surveyors sight lines to the reservoir islands or the Lilymere plantations where roosting and feeding Ospreys are most frequently detected.

Conclusion The Banks Renewables 2010-11 Ecological Impact Assessment and 2013 supplementary report on Black-headed Gull and Osprey activity have both shown to be seriously flawed. Inadequate survey techniques and inappropriate and un-tested collision risk models have undermined confidence in the scientific validity of their conclusions amongst the experienced local ornithological community. The avifauna of Killington Lake and surrounding habitats has been continuously studied and documented for longer than most sites in Cumbria (i.e. Sedbergh School Sedgwick Society records (c. 1900 - 2013). Concerns about the nationally important Black-headed Gull colony and Osprey passage are only a part of the rich natural history of this area which includes over 180 species of passage, wintering and breeding birds. The erection of giant turbines in such close proximity to Killington Reservoir and neighbouring Lilymere has the potential to be the most damaging development of its kind in Cumbria and north-west England.

Page 39 Highways Agency No objection. The Agency is in discussion with the developer to assess the works required at Junction 37 to allow the movement of the turbines to the site. No additional comments as a result of re-consultation.

Defence Infrastructure Organisation The principal safeguarding concern of the Ministry of Defence with respect to wind turbines relates to their potential to create a physical obstruction to air traffic movements and cause interference to Air Traffic Control and Air Defence radar installations. In this instance, the MoD has not raised any objection to the proposal but, in the interests of air safety, the turbines should be fitted with aviation lighting. In response to re-consultation: In the interests of air safety, the MoD requests that the turbines are fitted with aviation lighting. All turbines should be fitted with 25 candela omni-directional red lighting or infrared lighting with an optimised flash pattern of 60 flashes per minute of 200ms to 500ms duration at the highest practicable point. If planning permission is granted we would like to be advised of the following; · the date construction starts and ends; · the maximum height of construction equipment; · the latitude and longitude of every turbine.

Civil Aviation Authority There is currently a high demand for CAA comment on turbine applications which exceeds the capacity of the available resources to respond to requests within the timescales required by LPAs. The CAA has no responsibilities for safeguarding sites other than its own property, and a consultation by a LPA is taken as a request for clarification of procedural matters. Consultations should be undertaken with the Ministry of Defence and NATS.

NATS Safeguarding The development has been examined from a technical safeguarding aspect and does not conflict with safeguarding criteria.

Canal and River Trust Formerly the British Waterways Board, the Canal and River Trust owns Killington Reservoir and has no comments to make.

Environment Agency No objection in principle but recommend: • a condition, should consent be granted, requiring the submission and approval of a surface water drainage scheme; and

Page 40 • a buffer zone of at least 10 metres to protect the valley mire habitat during construction. • an informative that a Flood Defence Consent needs to be obtained from Cumbria County Council relating to the proposed new culvert. No additional comments on re-consultation.

Telecommunications Consultees Ericsson - object on the grounds that turbine 1 will affect a microwave link. Telefonica - a link passes within 30 metres of turbine 1. A condition should be attached relating to the micrositing of turbine 1 and prohibiting cranes interfering with the link during construction. Arqiva - on behalf of BBC and ITV transmission infrastructure; no objection. JRC - on behalf of Electricity North West, National Grid Gas and United Utilities: no objections, cleared with respect to radio link infrastructure. Mlltelecom - no objection. Vodafone - no objection.

Killington Wind Energy Support Project The KWESP has been formed to support the proposed wind farm at Killington. The main arguments in favour of the turbines are as follows: • The proposed wind farm, consisting of three large turbines, is on land adjacent to the motorway close to the existing Lambrigg turbines. • The project is supported by a clear majority of people living in Killington as assessed through an individual ballot. Several local parishes will benefit from both high speed broadband and from a community fund of £27,000 a year over 25 years. • On-shore wind turbines should be a part of the country’s energy mix and our communities should be part of that. The Killington turbines will produce sufficient energy for about 8,100 homes (over 50% of Kendal households) and off-set approximately 14,000 tonnes of CO2 every year.

STAK (Stop Turbines at Killington) The STAK objection is based on the grounds of unacceptable landscape, visual and cumulative impact on an area of great local and amenity value, including the setting of both National Parks, and the ornithological damage that would be caused in the vicinity of Killington Lake. STAK considers that these far outweigh the marginal benefits claimed by the developer. The key objections are: 1. Benefits of the proposal have been overstated The contributions in CO2 savings and electricity produced are small and have been overstated. Serious and unacceptable exaggerations have been made in the material benefits quoted with “homes supplied” inflated by 64% and CO2 savings by 21%. These inflated claims have been widely publicised but

Page 41 the benefits would be less than these misleading impressions have stated and contribute only marginal energy gains in national terms. 2. The intimidating dominance of these very tall turbines has been understated The turbines would be machines of unprecedented bulk, incongruity and dominance. Their proximity would impeded upon routes used daily, on cherished horizons, on areas and views enjoyed by people seeking tranquillity and recreation, and would be intrinsically alien. 3. The landscape and visual impact has been seriously underestimated STAK does not accept the claims made by the applicant that no unacceptable significant adverse visual effects would result from the development. The applicant’s sieve-mapping process takes no account of the unique nature of the site which is adjacent to a beautiful lake used extensively for leisure activities. The turbines would be machines of unprecedented bulk, incongruity and dominance. The turbines would be completely out of scale with the natural surroundings and could not fail to have a very significant visual impact on an extensive area of outstanding landscape value. Since turbines are moving structures, their impact is even greater than static photomontages can ever hope to convey. It is a totally inappropriate site for a wind farm. 4. The cumulative impact on the area has been seriously underestimated The cumulative impact of the scheme, both simultaneous and sequential, with two nearby wind farms is significantly underestimated by the applicant. The impact is of considerable concern for both local people and the wider community. Creeping industrialisation of the area from further individual wind farms could result in the area between the two National Parks becoming a giant wind farm by default. 5. The impact on fell walkers and tourism has been seriously underestimated The impact on the views both towards and from the surrounding fells, including the setting of the National Parks, has been significantly understated. These are areas of great amenity much valued by locals and visitors alike. The effect on tourism, a critical aspect of the local economy, has been overlooked and STAK shares the concerns of the County Council. 6. The potential danger to road users has been overlooked STAK believes that the applicant has understated the potential effects of turbines on road users. The site is closely surrounded by roads with four junctions nearby, including the busy M6/A684 junction. Guidance from recognised authorities suggests that the site has been badly chosen. 7. The ornithological impact, on and around Killington Lake, has been significantly underestimated STAK has produced evidence to show that the methodology for assessing ornithological impact is flawed, and conclusions severely understated. Information on mitigation measures is neither adequately addressed nor provided. It is the proximity of the turbines to the lake that makes the threat to birds so great. It would affect a large breeding colony of gulls, present a collision risk to migrating ospreys and prevent their potential for breeding at Killington.

Page 42 8. The applicant’s community consultation process has been inadequate STAK considers that the applicant has failed to conduct adequate community engagement in both scope and timing and has thus failed to uphold the principles of Localism. In contrast, STAK has had wide engagement with both the local and wider community through its website and local meetings. Overwhelming opposition to the proposal has been expressed, despite a concerted public relations exercise by Banks. Approval would be contrary to the aims of the Localism Act and the NPPF. With very few resources, compared with the applicant, STAK has achieved a wider assessment of community opinion which demonstrates little or no support for the scheme. 9. The hydrology assessment is inadequate That part of the applicant’s Environmental Statement concerning hydrology is inadequate considering the lake-side nature of the site and the identified wildlife interests. 10. Misrepresentations and inaccurate claims in the Non-Technical Summary would seriously mislead STAK considers that the inaccuracies and misrepresentations in the Non- Technical Summary would considerably mislead. Whether designed for decision-makers or the lay-reader, it is unfit for purpose as an accurate, stand- alone, factual summary of the application. It appears more like a promotional marketing brochure. 11. Key conclusion The applicant has exaggerated the benefits and significantly underestimated the potential harm of the proposal. The planning balance clearly shows that the very small gain in renewable energy from this proposal is far outweighed by the potential negative impacts. In response to re-consultation regarding birds, object for the following reasons: Until properly provided data, properly analysed and validated are available – and that would require at least a survey from the same location in 2014 under NE/SNH rules – there is no basis for accepting gull collision values. Note also that the study singularly failed to meet its supposed objectives for the osprey. In view of the importance of the Osprey, properly collected data is needed. Were the site to be developed, proper monitoring would be needed, including BACI and longer periods of years than have been proposed. What has been provided in the October 2013 report by URS is unsafe for planning. In response to re-consultation on additional visualisations submitted by the developer, they have submitted criticisms regarding the technicalities of the visualisations. These are not listed here because the Council’s consultant also raised some of the same concerns and these have been addressed and answered by the applicant. (The other criticisms relate to the Council ensuring that the visualisations are capable of being downloaded satisfactorily from the Council’s website; these are valid comments and will be addressed for future applications).

Page 43 The response finishes by stating that the conclusions above remain unchanged, however it is now possible for officers and members to view the viewpoint locations and examine the role of the Armistead turbines in reality.

FELLS (Friends of Eden, Lakeland and Lunesdale Scenery) FELLS objects to the Killington Lake wind farm primarily on the grounds of landscape, visual and cumulative impact which will damage an area of great amenity and landscape value, including the setting of two national parks. FELLS also objects to some impacts of the proposal on the natural history and the cultural heritage of the site and the surrounding area. A commentary is provided on extant planning policies, the current national political climate and the new planning framework. In FELLS view, the development has been brought forward in a manner that is inconsistent with the new planning regime with its emphasis on community involvement and localism. In FELLS view, there are inconsistencies in Banks Renewables literature which, it is claimed, are very confusing for the general public by constantly shifting the performance claims for the wind farm. This information has to be accurate if a genuinely balanced recommendation is to be reached. The following represents a summary of the FELLS key objections. The complete document submitted by FELLS can be viewed on the web-site. 1. The Planning Statement underestimates the negative impacts The Banks Planning Statement, though factually identifying many relevant planning policies, over-emphasises those favourable to wind, and fails to give necessary weight to the negative impacts of the scheme. As described, the scheme must fail on planning grounds. The NPPF has not in any sense removed the requirement for impacts to be weighed against benefits. It especially seeks to protect designated areas and the open countryside which are especially applicable to the Killington area adjacent to two National Parks. FELLS considers that it is unsustainable for this landscape area type (“Moorland Hill and Low Plateaus”, as defined by the Cumbria Wind Energy SPD) to accommodate further turbines, since this limit has already been exceeded by the Armistead Wind Farm of six turbines and the Lambrigg Wind Farm of five turbines is immediately adjacent to this landscape area. Sustainability is the “golden thread” running through the NPPF and for this, and the SPD, to have any credibility the concept of sustainability must include the recognition of when the capacity of an area to accommodate wind turbines has been reached. Based on policy considerations, FELLS considers that the Killington proposal fails at all levels of planning from national strategic legislation, through regional and sub-regional guidance, right down to earlier and up-to-date local planning policies. As such, the application cannot succeed. 2. Banks Renewables over-emphasise the issue of targets The pending abolition of the Regional Spatial Strategies means that targets set by technology type have little weight. Further, Government has stressed that targets for individual renewables technologies have not been set. Nationally, on-shore wind targets are largely met. With 16GW of renewable electricity by the end of 2012 and the existence of 18GW of wind energy “in the system” pressure is removed from LPAs to approve marginally or wholly unacceptable schemes, such as the proposed Killington wind farm.

Page 44 3. Banks Renewables approach to community engagement has been flawed FELLS consider that the so-called community engagement by banks has been contrary to the spirit of “localism”, largely covert, and contrary to guidance and best practice. It has resulted in distortion of the planning process. Banks seek to justify their overall community approach by citing Core Strategy policies CS7.4 and CS9.1 and use them to support their proposals for broadband provision and loft insulation to Killington residents to improve health and wellbeing. FELLS fundamentally disagree with and condemn Banks for seeking to influence the planning process by offering money, promises of money or other benefits before the planning application has been determined. Trying to justify their indefensible actions using these planning policy statements is deplorable. Banks, in their literature, list various stakeholders and organisations but do not include any organisation with an interest in the landscape. This is an astonishing omission given the nature of the application. It is the view of FELLS that Banks have failed to conform with the requirements of the NPPF. Neither have they seriously tried to address the real planning issue with the public. 4. There is minimal evidence of support for the scheme Community engagement by FELLS and STAK detected no significant majority support for the scheme, in fact the opposite, despite a wide and coordinated campaign by Banks. Approval would, therefore, be contrary to the aims of the Localism Act and the NPPF. 5. Visual representations are inadequate The panoramic images fail to conform to best practice: Banks have failed to provide single frame A3 images, a technically sound Non-technical Summary or employ the most appropriate photographic techniques. The impact of the scheme will, therefore, be more severe than is portrayed. The methodology employed results in significant vertical compression of the landscape, and thus any turbines rendered onto it. The developer has failed to provide any single frame images so essential for field assessment by councillors and the general public. In FELLS view, no planning authority should be asked to compromise its decision making when better methodology can convey a more accurate result. 6. The magnitude of visual and landscape impacts are understated The magnitude of effect assigned for a number of the viewpoint montages misrepresents and understates the landscape and visual impact of this proposed development. In FELLS view, (i) turbines of the height proposed are utterly out of scale with the surrounding landscape and will completely dominate the gently undulating “intermediate countryside” between Killington Lake and the surrounding mountains and (ii) the developer has failed to provide any suitable images from close to the turbines, other than from the Motorway Services picnic area. 7. Cumulative impact is seriously under-estimated The applicant significantly under-estimates the cumulative impact of the scheme with existing wind farms and those under construction (both simultaneous and sequential cumulative impact), in particular as it applies to regular visitors and in the daily experience of local people. The cumulative

Page 45 impact between the Killington, Lambrigg and Armistead wind farms are a major consideration in the assessment of the current application. Between Kearstwick, to the north of Kirkby Lonsdale, and Junction 37 the three wind farms will be visible one after the other and also, from certain viewpoints, within the same frame of reference, thus exhibiting some of the worst simultaneous and sequential visual impact that it is possible to imagine. Other serious occurrences of simultaneous visual impact will be views from behind the Lambrigg turbines looking south, views from parts of the Howgill Fells and from the Middleton Fell range. In each case, all three wind farms would be visible. FELLS conclude that the Killington application is contrary to County and local policies relating to cumulative impact and to the views expressed in local Public Inquiries. It also considers the Lune Valley and Kendal Low Fells are at a make or break point in their history, already experiencing serious direct impacts and with likely serious impacts developing in the near future as Armistead becomes operational. For that reason, if no other, the Killington application should be refused. 8. The application seriously under-states the impact that the wind farm will have on both National Parks, their setting and the Boundary Review It is FELLS view that the Killington proposal will inevitably have a major and unacceptable impact on the setting of the Yorkshire Dales National Park and a relatively lesser one on the Lake District National Park. Based on the existing boundary, it will be 2km to the nearest turbine. If the proposed extension is agreed it will be just 800 metres away. Notably, the greatest impact will be as the traveller approaches the National Park(s) northwards along the M6 or eastwards along the A684. The scheme will also be unacceptable in terms of setting when viewed from the public bridleway and paths on Roan Edge, Lambrigg Fell and the summits of the Middleton Fell range. FELLS include a quote from the Inspector’s report following the Sillfield (near Gatebeck) Public Inquiry in which he stated: “ From viewpoints within or close to the Yorkshire Dales National Park I believe that the cumulative visual and landscape impacts would detract from the sense of tranquillity, and general absence of man-made development, that characterises the Park.” FELLS believe that the evidence clearly demonstrates the unsustainability of further turbines in this area, since they would be so clearly visible from the National Parks and the proposed extension areas, and would unquestionably compromise their setting. 9. The application understates the adverse impact on travellers on the M6 and the A684 Too little importance is attributed to the impact of the turbines on these two roads and to the negative “gateway” effect. Attention is drawn to a recent appeal in Scotland where the Reporter (Inspector) makes specific reference to the adverse effect of turbines on the M77 motorway and the local road network: “- - - due to their significant height over and above the plateau moorland and slopes the proposed turbines would become a dominant feature to travellers and detract from the visual amenity of the routes.” 10. Wildlife impacts are understated and not adequately assessed FELLS has concerns about the impact of the scheme on wildlife in and around the mire communities, on nesting birds and passage migrants, and of the potential risk of unavoidable contamination of the lake. The same concerns

Page 46 are shared by the Cumbria Wildlife Trust. Not only are these mires the home to uncommon plants and breeding birds, they are exceptionally vulnerable to disturbance and pollution. Such large turbines would pose an unacceptable risk to birds, especially the large breeding colonies. 11. Cultural heritage impacts are inadequately addressed FELLS consider that local cultural heritage impacts, notably on Fox’s Pulpit and the associated historic Quaker Meeting House at Brigflatts are underestimated and not consistent with the guidance of English Heritage or Public Inquiry decisions. Both Fox’s Pulpit and Brigflatts will be impacted upon by the turbines and by simultaneous cumulative impacts which would significantly erode the visitor experience and sense of place. Greater weight should have been attributed to this site and its importance than the few remarks in the applicant’s Environmental Statement. Taken together with the visual, landscape and cumulative impacts, FELLS consider that the impact on Fox’s Pulpit materially strengthens the case for rejection. 12. The applicant’s performance claims are confused and overstated The applicant overstates the likely electricity generation from this scheme, inflates the number of homes supplied, and exaggerates the carbon dioxide savings – all issues which change the planning balance. According to FELLS, the three turbines should produce in the region of 26,800 megawatt hours per year which equates to approximately 5700 homes but Banks claim that the wind farm will supply the equivalent of some 8100 house. Furthermore, argue FELLS, using North West average consumption figures, the number of houses is reduced to 4900. FELLS conclude that in all the technical pronouncements, banks have constantly changed the goal posts, been inaccurate, and have sought to paint a rose-tinted picture rather than a truthful one. It is, therefore, difficult to attach appropriate weight to the claimed benefits. This has to count heavily against the proposal when balanced against the significant impacts of the scheme. 13. Conclusions • Despite the necessary “presumption towards sustainable development”, the Killington scheme fails to meet planning criteria at all levels – national, regional and local. This failure applied substantially to visual and landscape impacts (alone and cumulatively), and to lesser degrees to amenity, ecology, cultural and social parameters. • Banks have failed to properly involve and consult large sections of the communities in the area but instead have sought to “buy-off” opposition by promises of money, materials or services. In this way they have lost credibility and have remarkably little support in the wider community considering the unremitting campaign they have mounted. • The planning balance is clearly against this scheme, even more so when the exaggerated claims of power generation, houses supplied and carbon dioxide saved are weighed against the huge damage the scheme will cause to South Lakeland and the adjacent National Parks.

Page 47 In response to re-consultation on birds and noise issues they make the following comment: FELLS submitted a detailed objection to the Killington wind farm proposal on 27 th November 2012. FELLS have now studied the supplementary information submitted by Banks Renewables, namely (1) URS Black-headed Gull Survey Report October 2013 and (2) the TNEI ETSU R-97 Noise assessment study also dated October 2013 and comment as below while confirming our continued objection to this scheme. 1. Regarding the bird survey , we have been in discussion with STAK (Stop Turbines at Killington) and fully support the further comments they intend to make on the 2013 survey. Our own limited original objection (pages 41, 7.1) made particular reference to the mire communities and the breeding waders. We are advised that the new survey focussing on Black-headed Gulls, was carried out by an inappropriate method as it was designed for offshore wind farms. On what we believe is flawed data, we therefore do not support the mitigation proposal, and even if it were agreed, post-construction monitoring would cause further disturbance to the mire communities and particularly breeding waders. We therefore SUSTAIN OUR OBJECTION Observations by expert local birders have shown ospreys are increasingly seen on passage at Killington, and the failure of the URS surveyor to see any is simply a reflection of the very limited survey that was carried out. We believe the risk of collision for this nationally protected and still rare bird remains significant. We therefore SUSTAIN OUR OBJECTION as set out in paragraph 7.5 of our original objection. 2. Regarding the new noise data , FELLS did not raise a specific objection to the original studies but note that these have been significantly extended and include readings at Lilymere and elsewhere. It will be for others to assess the validity of these additional studies. However, we wish to point out that similar assurances and data was generated and given to local residents living close to the Armistead site. Despite our objections at that site being ignored both by the Planning Inspector and the High Court Judge, our concerns and predictions have been born out. As you are aware, significant noise issues have arisen there. These further studies at Killington do not, therefore, give us any assurance that similar problems will not arise here also. In response to re-consultation relating to visualisations: the same comments as those of STAK with respect to the visualisations are made and the noise issues that have become apparent at Armistead are very likely caused by Excess Amplitude Modulation (EAM) and whilst we are opposed to this development in principle, if permission is to be granted then a condition similar to that attached in the Den Brook decision should also be attached. This created a 3dB(A) EAM limit.

Yorkshire Dales Society The Society objects to the development on the following grounds: • Landscape Issues. The existing wind farm developments at Lambrigg and Armistead have already reached, and arguably gone beyond, the capacity of the landscape in this area to absorb this kind of development. The cumulative impact of this proposed development on the landscape in the locality, and on the settings of the Yorkshire Dales National Park (particularly the Howgills)

Page 48 and the Lake District National Park would be unacceptable and would outweigh any benefits that might be gained. Furthermore, the area immediately to the east has been identified by Natural England as worthy of inclusion in the Yorkshire Dales National Park and will be the subject of a public inquiry in May 2013. In this context, it would be wholly inappropriate to allow this development. • Cultural Heritage. Fox’s Pulpit on Firbank Fell is where George Fox preached on 13 June 1652 and is now regarded as the birthplace of the religious movement known as the Religious Society of Friends, the Quakers. It is a place of pilgrimage for Friends from across the world. Quite contemplation is the very essence of the Quaker faith, but the wind turbines would be very close and would destroy the character of this iconic location. • Other Issues. Other objectors have highlighted the potential damage caused to the tourist industry as a result of allowing these over-dominant wind turbines to be built at one of the main gateways to both the Yorkshire Dales and Lake District National Parks; and the potential damage to wildlife around Killington Lake.

Friends of the Lake District This application would cause demonstrable harm and conflict with established policies which seek to protect our cherished landscapes. It should, therefore, be refused for the following reasons: 1. Landscape character. The NPPF stresses the Importance of recognising the intrinsic character and the beauty of the countryside as a core planning principle. The District Council’s Core Strategy Policy CS8.2 states that proposals for development should be informed by, and be sympathetic to, distinctive landscape character types. The site is predominantly located in “rolling farmland and heath” where it is noted as being sensitive to poorly sited and scaled development, including large scale infrastructure development. The landscape of the Lune Valley is of long sweeping views with strong linear components of railway and M6 and a general absence of vertical structures. The intrinsic qualities are of a landscape dominated by nature and pleasing to the eye. The introduction of three, 132 metres high turbines would have an effect out of proportion with their small number. They would be wholly inappropriate and intrusive in this location and out scale with their surroundings. The movement of the blades would be a discordant feature whether viewed in whole or in part as blades flashing over a skyline from more distant viewpoints. They would degrade this attractive landscape and adversely affect sensitive views into and out of this area so close to the Yorkshire Dales National Park (YDNP) and the Lake District National Park (LDNP) proposed extension. 2. Visual impacts. The proposal would result in unacceptable visual harm to the landscape. The site is within a landscape of a particularly high quality in its own right as well as forming a setting for the YDNP. The site is widely overlooked with many key views from high ground. The impact upon the visual amenities from these fells and ridges and people’s enjoyment of the area would be significant and adverse. It is considered that the applicant’s assessment has too little regard for the importance of views both to and from the Howgill Fells. The juxtaposition of the turbines

Page 49 in the foreground of views would be highly intrusive and impinge on the broad vistas now enjoyed. The turbines would be an unwelcome interruption with striking verticality. Equally, they would be very intrusive into views from the east to the Middleton Fells, an area proposed for inclusion in the YDNP. To the north and west is the LDNP with its own proposal for an extended boundary variation in the area of Whinfell Beacon. The turbines would form an intrusive element in long distance vistas and appear as a dominant feature. 3. Cumulative impacts and landscape capacity. The Cumbria Wind Energy SPD specifically refers to the risk of cumulative impact in the Lune Valley. This is the case because the area offers such wide vistas from prominent viewpoints and is a major corridor for north/south travellers. Whether viewed from the north or from the south, the effects arising from this proposal when added to the Lambrigg and Armistead wind farms will be highly damaging to visual amenity. This is especially true looking north from the Old Scotch Road. Any argument that suggests a third wind farm is acceptable as others already exist in the locality is failing to see that it is even more important to resist this development to prevent a stunning landscape containing wind farms becoming a wind farm landscape. 4. Immediate environs. Killington Lake is a much used and popular location for quieter recreational pursuits such as sailing, fishing and bird-watching. The impacts arising from this development on these activities would be very harmful through disturbance and distraction. The massive size of the turbines would overwhelm when at close quarters destroying the currently pleasing ambience. It is understood that Killington Lake is especially important for wildlife, a wide range of breeding birds and an important passage for migrating ospreys. The area is, therefore, exceptionally vulnerable to disturbance and pollution. For users of local footpaths and roads the sheer scale of the turbines would be overwhelming and oppressive. For users of the A684 the scale of the development would be overbearing and distracting. Some 2.5km away is Fox’s Pulpit, an acknowledged place for quiet contemplation and a place of pilgrimage linked with George Fox and Quakerism. The turbines would be a conspicuous feature in the wide landscape when viewed from Fox’s Pulpit with the movement of the blades being extremely intrusive into the atmosphere sought from this special place. 5. The setting of the National Parks and the Boundary Review. The National Parks Boundary Review proposes enlarging the designated areas of both National Parks such that the application would be much closer to the National Park boundaries with, in the case of the YDNP, to within 800 metres. The setting of the National Parks is a material consideration and, in this instance, it is considered that the wind farm would appear as a large scale development on the edge of the YDNP and very close to the LDNP resulting in an unacceptable impact on these designated areas. In some way, the applicant suggests that this area is already degraded because of the M6 and its associated service area and junction. Contrary to that view is the belief that because of existing developments it is even more important that the area is safeguarded from further man-made features to protect the wider, stunning landscape.

Page 50 To summarise, the FoLD urge that planning permission be refused for the following reasons: • The proposal would result in unacceptable visual harm to the landscape. • It would have a significant adverse impact upon local landscape character including the setting of the YDNP, not least by reason of the cumulative impact from nearby built/under construction/planned wind turbines. • It would change the nature and character of the “gateway” corridor to the YDNP with potentially negative economic impacts on local businesses. • To an unacceptable degree the intrusive nature of the proposal would impact on nature conservation interests and associated recreational activities at Killington Lake and quiet contemplative opportunities on nearby fells and viewpoints, including Fox’s Pulpit. • Should the proposed variation to the boundaries of the National Parks, including the YDNP, be confirmed, the visual impact arising from this development in such close proximity would result in significant harm to the setting of the National Park. The claimed benefits of this particular application are outweighed by the harmful effects arising from the proposal being in an inappropriate location and of an inappropriate scale, to a degree that would be demonstrably harmful to the immediate locality and the wider setting embracing two National Parks. No additional comment to re-consultation.

Friends of Rural Cumbria’s Environment (FORCE) FORCE wish to formally object to this application for the following reasons: • Unacceptable change to landscape character, impacting on the two National Parks and the surrounding countryside. • The scheme would have an unacceptable cumulative impact along with other wind energy developments in the area, notably the Lambrigg and Armistead wind farms. Adverse visual and cumulative effects were prime reasons for the refusal of the proposed wind farm at Sillfield, which was dismissed at appeal in 2009. • The application understates visual impacts on high sensitivity receptors. These impacts cannot be mitigated. The size of the turbines and the movement of the blades would have a jarring effect on the tranquillity of the Howgills, industrialising the immediate and wider rural surroundings. At close range, the turbines will be dominating and overbearing. • Inadequate consideration of effects on wildlife, particularly birds associated with Killington Lake.

Kirkby Lonsdale and District Civic Society Our members are opposed to any turbine development in the Lune Valley that diminishes the landscape, and this proposal falls squarely into that category. We wish to object strongly to this proposal for the following reasons:

Page 51 • The proposed site is in an area of great scenic beauty, close to the new boundary being considered for the Yorkshire Dales National Park, and in a gateway to that and the Lake District National Park. • Such a massive intrusion into the landscape would diminish the enjoyment of walkers, horse-riders and others taking outdoor exercise and recreation (such as users of Killington Lake) over a very large area. • In the same view are the glorious Howgill Fells and the upper reaches of the Lune valley, and the impact of such an enormous industrial site would be seen over a very large area including all the fells to east and west of the Lune valley between Fox's pulpit and the villages bordering the north side of Kirkby Lonsdale. • There is no doubt about the importance of Killington Lake itself as a migration route for birds, and the proposal would present a substantial risk to them. • The cumulative impact of this proposal, taken together with the existing Lambrigg site and the Armistead development currently under construction, would be truly enormous from practically any direction and over an exceedingly large area. • There would be a derisory impact of such an installation on energy security and carbon emissions, and it's worth noting that the nearby Lambrigg Wind Farm is one of the worst-performing in England due in part to its poor location. • The photo montages presented by the developer do not give an accurate picture of how the site would look. They are mostly stitched-together images taken with a 50mm focal length lens and greatly understate the impact in the landscape. Whilst there is no current mandatory way of representing such impacts, there is a lot of knowledge within the industry on how to do so accurately, and it is disappointing that the developer has chosen to use these images. The Civic Society believes that there is a prima facie case that the enormous degradation of the landscape and outdoor amenity resulting from this proposal massively outweigh the suggested benefit in terms of renewable energy, and strongly urges the rejection of the application.

Killington Sailing Association The Association exists to further the interests of water sports on the lake and in particular to stimulate and provide facilities for use of the lake by young people and those with disabilities. The Association has no opinion either in favour of, or against, the proposed development. The only matter of possible direct concern to the Association is if the wind farm were to affect sailing conditions on the lake.

Radiation Free Lakeland Radiation Free Lakeland fully supports the Killington Wind Farm. Planning permission should be granted for the following reasons: • Killington will provide electricity for approximately 8,100 homes. • The wind farm is next to the M6.

Page 52 • There is already a precedent for wind energy in this area and people are accustomed to seeing wind energy as a positive part of the landscape. • It is outside both the Lake District and Yorkshire Dales National Parks. • It is well away from built-up areas.

Open Spaces Society The Open Spaces Society objects most strongly to this application. The turbines will be a severe intrusion into this lovely area. Although they would not be within the proposed extension to the National park, they would be right next to the boundary and extremely visible from all around. They will ruin the view from the Howgill Fells in particular. This is an immensely popular area for recreation; people roam the hills and enjoy the peace, tranquillity and unspoilt views. The turbines would produce a serious conflict with those vital qualities. The cumulative effect of turbines in the area makes the current application all the more deplorable, amounting to suburbanisation of wild country. The Council is urged to reject this application which would be extremely damaging to the landscape, people’s enjoyment and the tourism industry of the area.

Shell UK No objections. If planning permission is granted then contact should be made to ensure no impact on pipelines from excavations.

Electricity North West No impact on the electricity distribution system or other assets.

Neighbours / Individual Representations Some 1045 objections have been received together with about 1245 letters and e- mails in support of planning permission being granted. Four emails have been received that do not refer to a material planning consideration and have been ignored as a result. The reasons advanced by those who wish to see planning permission refused are, for the most part, similar to the reasons put forward by those organisations opposed to the wind farm ; namely, STAK, FELLS, the Yorkshire Dales Society, Friends of the Lake District, FORCE and the Kirkby Lonsdale Civic Society. The main objections can be summarised as follows: • Unacceptable damage to the landscape. The turbines would be wholly inappropriate and intrusive in this location and out of scale with their surroundings. • Unacceptable visual harm to a landscape which is of a particularly high quality and forms a setting to the Yorkshire Dales National Park. • The turbines would be damaging to the setting of the National Park. • Visual degradation of the western gateway to the Dales. • The turbines would industrialise the landscape.

Page 53 • There would be a simultaneous and sequential adverse visual cumulative impact with the Lambrigg and Armistead wind farms. Instead of a landscape containing wind farms it would become a wind farm landscape. • Damage to bird species. The adjacent Killington Reservoir is important for wintering and breeding birds and the turbines will have negative impacts on bird life. • Tourism will suffer. • The turbines will intrude upon the quiet contemplative opportunities on nearby fells and viewpoints, including Fox’s Pulpit. • The benefits from the turbines are meagre and are far outweighed by the disadvantages. • The policy of Localism means that development should not be imposed on a community if it is not desired and is not in its best interests.

Those in support of the turbines put forward the following arguments: • Although the turbines will be visible from the Yorkshire Dales National Park the visual impact will be reduced because of distance. • The location is one in which the turbines will have a minimal impact on the landscape. • The site is not within a specially designated landscape area and is outside the Lake District and Yorkshire Dales National Parks. • The site is next to a busy motorway. • The turbines will be distant from residential properties. • There will not be any noise nuisance; there are no residential properties nearby and the noise of motorway traffic is already disruptive. • The consequences of climate change on the landscape are considerably greater than the impact of the turbines. • The Killington site will have less visual and noise impact than the Armistead Wind Farm because of the local topography, the sparse population and the presence of the motorway. • Those who live locally will not be affected by noise or construction traffic. • The site is on the opposite side of the M6 to the Lambrigg Wind Farm. • Climate change will have a massive impact on farming, tourism and local ecology in South Lakeland and action needs to be taken now to minimise the impact. • There is an urgent need to reduce carbon emissions. • A ballot organised by the Parish Council indicates that the majority of Killington parishioners are in favour of the turbines. • The community fund of £27,000 a year will help to deliver a better broadband service for the local area as well as funding other improvements.

Page 54 • The wind farm will generate additional income for the Killington Charities to support the young and the elderly in Killington Parish. • The negative effects of turbines on tourism are over-stated. • The wind farm will produce clean, green electricity for approximately 8,100 homes. • A domestic source of renewable energy is needed to decrease our reliance on imported fossil fuels and help tackle rising fuel bills. • It is in the national interest to encourage diverse forms of low-carbon energy based on renewable, non-polluting sources. • In the context of climate change and the need for energy security it is clear that indigenous sources of carbon-free energy are urgently needed. • The carbon footprint is minimal compared to other energy sources, once the initial building is completed. • The turbines are compatible with current government policy on renewable energy.

APPLICANT’S REPRESENTATIONS: 1. The wind farm will generate enough electricity to power up to 8,123 households per year (based on an installed capacity of 10.2MW, a capacity factor of 30% and an average annual household usage of 3,300kwh). 2. The wind farm will contribute to meeting national renewable energy targets of 15% of all energy from renewable sources by 2020 and 32% from on-shore wind by 2015. It will also contribute to meeting the renewable energy target of 247.5MW from on-shore wind by 2015 contained in the now-revoked Regional Spatial Strategy. 3. There will be a reduction in CO2 emissions equating up to 13,966 tonnes each year. 4. The development will contribute to rural diversification. 5. The development will contribute to improving the provision of rural broadband. 6. The NPPF makes it clear that decision-taking means approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and where the development plan is absent or silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, planning permission should be granted unless : (a) any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole; or (b) specific policies in the NPPF indicate development should be resisted. 7. The development is in accordance with all relevant national and local planning policies. It complies with national policy for renewable energy as set out in the NPPF and with the provisions of the adopted development plan as well as the design ethos prescribed within the Wind Energy SPD. 8. No unacceptable significant adverse effects will result from the Killington Wind Farm.

Page 55 POLICY ISSUES: Overarching National Policy Statement (NPS) for Energy (EN-1):- Whilst primarily intended as the Policy Document for the National Infrastructure Division, Paragraph 1.2.1 states; “….In England and Wales this NPS is likely to be a material consideration in decision making on applications that fall under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).” The energy NPSs should speed up the transition to a low carbon economy and thus help to realise UK climate change commitments sooner than continuation under the current planning system. Part 5 of this document sets out generic impacts such as ecology.

National Planning Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3):- This document is also a material planning consideration for all Renewable Energy planning applications determined under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended). Again this document provides policy guidance for the National Infrastructure Division and lists impacts that may need to be considered. These are not rehearsed here because they are similar to Local Policy tests.

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework):- The Framework states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, amongst other matters (paragraph 109). Within the framework there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development and support for the delivery of renewable and low carbon energy if their impacts are (or can be made) acceptable (paragraphs 14, 17, 93, 98). Consequently, Local Planning Authorities are expected to recognise the responsibility imposed on all communities to contribute to energy generation from renewable or low carbon sources (paragraph 97). In July 2013, following the Ministerial announcements of the previous month, “Planning practice guidance for renewable and low carbon energy” was published by the Department for Communities and Local Government. This supersedes PPS22 Companion Guide, which had not been withdrawn at the time of the publication of the NPPF, which was withdrawn on the same date.

Ministerial Statements:- In June 2013 the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government delivered a written statement to Parliament in which he stated: “The National Planning Policy Framework includes strong protections for the natural and historic environment. Yet, some local communities have genuine concerns that when it comes to wind farms insufficient weight is being given to environmental considerations like landscape, heritage and local amenity. We need to ensure decisions do get the environmental balance right in line with the framework and, as expected by the framework, any adverse impact from a wind farm development is addressed satisfactorily.

Page 56 We have been equally clear that this means facilitating sustainable development in suitable locations. Meeting our energy goals should not be used to justify the wrong development in the wrong location. We are looking to local councils to include in their local plans policies which ensure that adverse impacts from wind farms developments, including cumulative landscape and visual impact, are addressed satisfactorily. Where councils have identified areas suitable for onshore wind, they should not feel they have to give permission for speculative applications outside those areas when they judge the impact to be unacceptable. To help ensure planning decisions reflect the balance in the framework, my department will issue new planning practice guidance shortly to assist local councils, and planning inspectors in their consideration of local plans and individual planning applications. This will set out clearly that: • the need for renewable energy does not automatically override environmental protections and the planning concerns of local communities; • decisions should take into account the cumulative impact of wind turbines and properly reflect the increasing impact on (a) the landscape and (b) local amenity as the number of turbines in the area increases; • local topography should be a factor in assessing whether wind turbines have a damaging impact on the landscape (i.e. recognise that the impact on predominantly flat landscapes can be as great or greater than as on hilly or mountainous ones); • great care should be taken to ensure heritage assets are conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance, including the impact of proposals on views important to their setting.” In June 2013 the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change delivered a written statement to Parliament in which he stated: “It is important that onshore wind is developed in a way that is sustainable – economically, environmentally and socially. Although, research shows that around two-thirds of people in the UK support onshore wind, we recognise that many people have real concerns about the siting of onshore turbines in their communities and how they are involved in this process. The measures set out in the first part of the response, together with those being announced in parallel today by my Rt Hon Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, mean communities will have greater say over proposed onshore wind development in their area, and can gain increased benefits from hosting developments that do proceed … Communities hosting renewable energy installations play a key role in meeting the national need for secure, clean energy. It is only right that local people should be recognised and rewarded for that contribution. This new package of measures on community benefits will ensure that communities receive a fairer share of benefits associated with onshore wind and are properly empowered to negotiate with developers the type of benefit package that best suits their local needs. …..”

Page 57 Planning practice guidance for renewable and low carbon energy:- This Guidance sets out a series of questions and these are explored in more depth where relevant: • How are noise impacts of wind turbines assessed? • Is safety an issue when wind turbine applications are assessed? • Air traffic and safety • Defence • Strategic Road Network • Is interference with electromagnetic transmissions an issue for wind turbine applications? • How can the risk of wind turbines be assessed for ecology? Evidence suggests that there is a risk of collision between moving turbine blades and birds and/or bats. Other risks including disturbance and displacement of birds and bats and the drop in air pressure close to the blades which can cause barotrauma (lung expansion) in bats, which can be fatal. Whilst these are generally a relatively low risk, in some situations, such as in close proximity to important habitats used by birds or bats, the risk is greater and the impacts on birds and bats should therefore be assessed. Advice on assessing risks is available from Natural England’s website. • How should heritage be taken into account in assessing wind turbine applications? • Is shadow flicker and reflected light an issue for wind turbine applications? • How to assess the likely energy output of a wind turbine? As with any form of energy generation this can vary and for a number of reasons. With wind turbines the mean wind speed at hub height (along with the statistical distribution of predicted wind speeds about this mean and the wind turbines used) will determine the energy captured at a site. The simplest way of expressing the energy capture at a site is by use of the ‘capacity factor’. This though will vary with location and even by turbine in an individual wind farm. This can be useful information in considering the energy contribution to be made by a proposal, particularly when a decision is finely balanced. • How should cumulative landscape and visual impacts from wind turbines be assessed? Cumulative landscape impacts and cumulative visual impacts are best considered separately. The cumulative landscape impacts are the effects of a proposed development on the fabric, character and quality of the landscape; it is concerned with the degree to which a proposed renewable energy development will become a significant or defining characteristic of the landscape. Cumulative visual impacts concern the degree to which proposed renewable energy development will become a feature in particular

Page 58 views (or sequences of views), and the impact this has upon the people experiencing those views. Cumulative visual impacts may arise where two or more of the same type of renewable energy development will be visible from the same point, or will be visible shortly after each other along the same journey. Hence, it should not be assumed that, just because no other sites will be visible from the proposed development site, the proposal will not create any cumulative impacts. • What information is needed to assess cumulative landscape and visual impacts of wind turbines?

The Development Plan:- Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that planning applications be determined in accordance with the provisions of the statutory development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The development plan comprises the South Lakeland Local Plan Core Strategy and the saved policies of the South Lakeland Local Plan.

South Lakeland Core Strategy:- The Core Strategy was adopted in 2010. Policy CS7.4 supports the Rural Economy by encouraging the provision or broadband in the rural areas. Policy CS7.7 supports, in principle (where the protection of the environment is assured and designated areas are safeguarded), appropriately located schemes which will increase energy production from the full range of renewable sources, including wind energy. This policy also supports the use of the Cumbria Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document which is part of the Local Development Framework but not itself part of the statutory development plan. Policy CS8.2 contains criteria for the protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character including regard for the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit.

South Lakeland Local Plan (LP):- Under saved LP Policy C25, proposals for renewable energy projects will be favourably considered where (a) energy generation and other benefits outweigh any identified environmental impact; and (b) the proposals are consistent with best practice. Saved LP Policy C26 states the acceptability of wind energy developments will be judged according to whether a number of defined criteria can be satisfied. One of the criteria is that the proposal’s energy contribution and other benefits outweigh any significant adverse impact on the character and appearance of the landscape, the amenity of residential properties, nature conservation, archaeological or geographical interests. Under the provisions of saved LP Policy C31, there is a requirement for assessments of renewable energy developments to take account of the cumulative development on the area if other similar energy projects have been permitted within the same area. Cumulative effect can be significant in relation to both the number of

Page 59 developments and their degree of dominance. It is also significant both with reference to important single viewpoints and to the general impression when travelling through a landscape.

Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit:- This document was published in 2011 by the County Council. It reflects the principles of the European Landscape Convention by identifying and assessing landscape types and by providing a strategic framework and guidelines to help protect, manage and plan changes to maintain and enhance landscape distinctiveness. The application site lies across the boundary of two landscape Sub-Types, 11b (Low Fells) and 9b (Rolling Farmland and Heath), and exhibits characteristics of both.

Cumbria Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document (SPD):- The SPD was adopted by the District Council in 2007 and includes a detailed Landscape Capacity assessment which indicates the potential capacity of different landscape areas to support wind energy development. This has been developed to enable a consistent approach to be taken in the consideration of the effects of wind energy projects on the distinctive and often high quality landscape character of Cumbria. Given the wide-ranging zones of visibility typically associated with wind turbines, it is appropriate to consider the impact of such development upon adjacent landscape types. Several landscape types lie within middle range (2.4-12km, as defined by the SPD) of the Killington site. To the north, much of the landscape falls into landscape Type 11 (Upland Fringes) and includes Sub-Types 11a (Foothills) and 11b (Low Fells); the site itself falls within the latter. The SPD judges landscape Type 11 to have a low/moderate capacity to accommodate a small group (3-5) and, exceptionally, a large group (6-9) of turbines. Within 2km of the site the effects of the turbines are likely to be significant and it is important to note that the SPD emphasises the views towards the Howgills from the A684 and the M6 as being particularly sensitive. To the south, much of the landscape is designated 9b (Rolling Farmland and Heath). The SPD advises that this landscape type has moderate capacity to accommodate up to a small group of turbines. Part of the eastern portion of 9b falls within the area subject to the Variation Order for inclusion within the Yorkshire Dales National Park. The SPD advises that constraints on wind energy development in 9b include the potential for intrusion on adjacent major valleys and views from the western Howgills. The Lune Valley is located between the application site and the Howgill, Barbon and Middleton Fells. This area is designated 8b (Broad Valleys) and the majority is subject to the Variation Order. The SPD states that landscape Type 8 has a low/moderate capacity to accommodate turbine development. Valley landscapes are particularly sensitive to such development and the Killington turbines would often appear as prominent skyline features when viewed from this area. They would exert a dominant effect upon the valley landscape and would detract from its inherent character. The impact is compounded by the sensitivity of this area, as either National Park or National Park quality landscape.

Page 60 Further to the east and north lie the high fells. These include areas currently within the Yorkshire Dales National Park (southern Howgills, Frostrow and Blaugh Fells), areas subject to the Variation Order for inclusion within the Yorkshire Dales (Middleton and Barbon Fells and the northern Howgills) and the Lake District National Park (Whinfell). The high fells are designated 13c (Fells and Scarps) and are judged by the SPD to have a low capacity to accommodate wind energy development. The SPD identifies the Sub-Type 9b area as having moderate capacity for wind turbines and recommends an appropriate scale of development would be a small group of 3-5 turbines. The Armistead Wind Farm, comprising six turbines, falls within the same landscape sub-type. Killington is also very close to the Lambrigg Wind Farm and, seen from much of this landscape sub-type, the two wind farms would appear as a single unit of eight turbines from many viewpoints. Consequently, the landscape capacity of Sub-Type 9b will be exceeded. Cumulatively, the impact of the Armistead, Lambrigg and Killington wind farms will be most significant in close proximity to the latter. In the context of the wider landscape, all three wind farms will be visible from the high fells to the east. This will increase the overall proportion of the panoramic views from these fells which is occupied by wind turbine development. The SPD advises that older developments, comprising smaller turbines, can exacerbate the impact of newer schemes by emphasising their relative height. Being nearly twice as tall as the Lambrigg turbines, the Killington Wind Farm would exacerbate the cumulative impact.

Policy Summary The proposed wind farm falls to be assessed in accordance with the Cumbria Wind Energy SPD, the development plan policies quoted above and the material considerations of the NPPF, associated Planning Practice Guidance and Ministerial Statements. They are all supportive of wind energy development subject, among other matters, to impact on visual amenity and landscape character being acceptable. Some of the relevant policies are essentially “protecting” policies and others are “balancing” policies in which the importance of protecting existing assets must be weighed against the benefits that would accrue from the wind farm. Policy CS8.2 of the Core Strategy is a “protecting” policy, concerned with safeguarding landscape character. The “balancing” policies are C25 and C26 of the Local Plan and Core Strategy Policy CS7.7. All are, albeit with some differences in emphasis, positive towards the development of renewable energy subject to certain criteria relating to potentially adverse impacts. The Killington scheme would make a tangible contribution to targets for renewable energy generation and, in the context of Government policy, this is something that carries substantial weight in its favour. However, the encouraging policy stance towards renewable energy development is not unqualified. Advice that such development should be capable of being accommodated is predicated on environmental and other impacts being satisfactorily addressed and the exploitation of the various sources of renewable energy is to be subject to appropriate environmental safeguards.

Page 61 HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: This application has been determined to accord with the rights and limitations of the Act in relation to Article 6 (Right to a fair and public hearing), Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence), Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and protection of property).

ASSESSMENT: Application of Planning Policy 1. The effects of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the surrounding landscape. 2. The cumulative impact of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the surrounding landscape taken together with the Armistead and Lambrigg wind farms. 3. The effects of the turbines on ecology, with particular reference to ornithology. 4. The effect of the turbines on the living conditions currently enjoyed by local residents, particularly in terms of visual impact, noise and shadow flicker. 5. The effect of the development on the historic environment. 6. The effect of the turbines on telecommunications links. 7. The contribution that the wind farm would make to achieving targets for renewable energy generation, bearing in mind national and local policy; and the extent to which any such contribution should be weighed against any adverse impacts in terms of other issues. 8. Ministerial Statements of June 2013

Impact on the Character and Appearance of the Landscape The council has engaged a consultant to assess and report on the issues of landscape and visual impact. He makes the following conclusions and are stated below in italics: In general terms the proposed turbines are compatible with the character of the immediate local landscape types 9b Rolling Farmland and Heath and 11b Low Fells. The turbines form a small group [of 3-5 turbines] which straddle the two landscape types. Both types of landscape have the capacity to accommodate a small group [or number of small groups] of turbines up to 120m as noted within the Cumbria County Council Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document (CCC WE SPD). The specific location of the proposed turbines creates a prominent feature particularly when viewed from the M6 corridor from where it would be viewed in sequence with Lambrigg and Armistead. The location of the proposed turbines is not in accordance with the CCC SPD guidance with reference to ‘particular sensitivities’ of views towards the Howgills and YDNP from the A684 and M6. Therefore we do not concur with the LVIA report findings that the proposal when viewed from the west towards the YDNP and the Howgills would not dominate the Howgill Fells and National Park beyond.

Page 62 Viewpoints from sensitive receptors in the east would incur significant visual effects and medium to high levels of change. We concur that the Killington site itself does not constitute a peaceful backwater due to the presence of the M6 and A684 and associated layby’s however there would be significant visual effects on places such as Millthrop which is within the YDNP boundary and as such would constitute erosion of an area which has the special landscape qualities of the YDNP.

Cumulative Impacts of the Proposal Combination with Armistead and Lambrigg There are a limited number of viewpoints where the Lambrigg and Killington turbines would combine visually to form a large wind farm development; however these have intermittent and transient incidence. Cumulative visual impacts do occur both in conjunction with Armistead and more so with Lambrigg. However whilst these are within the same field of vision and are simultaneous they are also limited and transient in nature. Importantly from the east ie the Howgills and YDNP the developments of Lambrigg, Killington and Armistead would usually be seen as individual groupings which reflect the CCC SPD guidance for the landscape character types 9b and 11b. Combination with other turbines in a linear pattern on a route Sequential cumulative visual impacts would be reinforced along the M6 corridor north and southbound by the development of Killington; turbines are prominent at reasonably regular intervals and appear in succession ‘shortly’ after each other from the motorway at Lambrigg, Armistead, Burton in Kendal, and Lancaster. This is a relatively new concept and it is considered that journeys along the M6 should be assessed. When travelling north along the M6 starting at the junction with the M55 in Lancashire then three turbines are visible to the West near Blackpool; there is the turbine to the East opposite Lancaster University; there is the turbine at a quarry near Carnforth to the East; a proposed turbine has been granted consent at Burton in Kendal service area on the western side. Moving into Cumbria, the Killington and Lambrigg turbines would then be visible either side of the motorway and Armistead to the East. Travelling south, the Lambrigg, Killington and Armistead turbines will be seen in close proximity in Cumbria, whilst in Lancashire the only turbine with very transient views of the blades seen travelling in this direction is the one opposite Lancaster University. Whilst the Guidance does not define what is to be considered turbines appearing “Shortly after each other”, it is considered that there is now a cumulative visual impact from turbines in the M6 corridor in the Lancashire and Cumbrian area. The Consultant states that he objects to the proposal on the following grounds (indicated in italics): The proposed turbines would provide a prominent interruption of views of existing notable and particularly sensitive features such as the Howgill Fells when viewed from the M6. In this respect the proposed siting of the turbines in this location does not minimise impact on people who travel through or use the area for recreation. The scale of the turbines is such that they will dominate the moorland site and the view [in part] from the M6 and A684 towards the Howgill Fells and YDNP.

Page 63 One of the key constraints identified within the CCC WE SPD Capacity Statement is as follows [this relates to Landscape Character area 11]; “general absence of comparable manmade structures” We acknowledge that Lambrigg does provide an indication of a large man made structure within the surrounding landscape [albeit with turbines nearly half the size of those proposed], however there are areas from where Killlington would be visible and that it is agreed that there would be significant visual effect. Places such as Millthrop do not have visible and comparable manmade structures currently and the introduction of turbines would compromise and erode the special landscape qualities that are found within the YDNP boundaries. These include a true sense of tranquillity, remoteness and a sense of solitude, which is rare in the UK today. In this instance the sense of tranquillity is particularly important. There may be further limited scope to provide off-site planting to provide mitigation for the likely effects on recreational routes and sites. There have been Landscape and Visual Assessments undertaken by the applicant, Cumbria County Council, Natural England, Yorkshire Dales National Park and STAK. With the exception of the applicant the conclusions are broadly similar with slightly different emphasises as would be expected from the range of professionals. Your officer’s consider that the greatest weight should be attached to the Council’s Consultant’s views and your officer’s endorse those conclusions.

Impact on Ecology Killington Reservoir is a County Wildlife Site and whilst this should be accorded weight as a material consideration, the reservoir is not designated nationally. The Council has received various responses to consultation on this issue. It is considered that greater weight should be attributed to the responses of Natural England and the RSPB. Both these organisations attach weight to the significant collision risk to the birds in the colony of Black Headed Gulls on the reservoir. After further survey work and assessment of collision risks, it is considered possible to mitigate this risk by stopping turbine 1 in daylight hours for two months and this can be controlled by attaching a condition as set out in the RSPB response. From the RSPB response concerning ospreys, it is not considered that further mitigation is necessary. It is concluded that there is no reason to refuse the application on the grounds of an unacceptable impact on the ecology of the area.

Impact on Living Conditions It is considered that there will be no significant impacts on the living conditions of residential properties because of the distance from the site. Any noise problems can be mitigated by condition. It is concluded that there is no reason to refuse the application on the grounds of an unacceptable impact on the residential amenity of dwellings in the area

Impact on the Historic Environment It is considered that the impact on the possible historic remains can be mitigated by condition.

Page 64 Fox’s Pulpit is not protected by a statutory designation, though it is considered to be the birth place of Quakerism. The Society of Friends places great significance on the site and holds an annual meeting in June each year to mark the event; people travel over great distances to attend. The Society places emphasis on quiet contemplation and the visual aspect from the “Pulpit” will have the restless scene of revolving turbine blades. In general though the congregation will be facing the pulpit and thus once at the meeting will have a reduced view of the turbines. It is concluded that there is no reason to refuse the application on the grounds of an unacceptable impact on the Historic or Cultural Environment of the area.

Impact on Telecommunications Links Ericsson’s have provided no information to support their objection and it should be noted that Telefonica have link within 30 metres of turbine 1 but have not raised an objection. The applicant has also requested information from Ericsson’s to establish how their link is affected; the applicant does not believe that the link is affected. It is concluded that there is no significant impact on telecommunication link, however it is considered that a condition can be attached requiring investigation and mitigation if interference is encountered.

Contribution to energy production The developer set out the potential carbon reductions when the scheme was proposed. With the need to mitigate the collision risk with Black-headed Gulls, the potential output is diminished by stopping turbine 1 during daylight hours. The applicant has submitted the following calculations to update the savings in CO 2:

Household Savings Household savings are based on a formula of: (Capacity * Capacity Factor * Hours in a Year [8760 hours equating to 365 days]) / Average Annual Household Electricity Use (kwh) All this is then multiplied by 1000 to give the number of households provided or each year. For Killington at full installed capacity using a capacity factor of 30% and the installation of 3.4MW turbines (which is most likely low considering the experience of Armistead) resulted in the following. ([10.2 * 30% * 8760] / 3300) * 1000 = 8,123 Households per year The proposal will operate at full capacity for 10 months of the year, equating to 7300 hours of the year. The proposal will therefore operate at reduced capacity for 2 months of the year, equating to 1460 hours. However T1 is not actually shut down for 2 months of the year, as it is operational during night time periods. Therefore taking an approximation of 8 hours operation and 16 hours non-operation for any given 24 hour period (at that time of year) the aforementioned 1460 hours of shutdown can now be split into two with 487 hours of operation and 973 hours of non-operation. So to pull all those factors together:-

Page 65 ([(10.2 * 30% * [7300 + 487]) + (6.8 * 30% * 973)] / 3300) * 1000 ([(10.2 * 0.3 * 7787) + (6.8 * 0.3 * 973)] / 3300) * 1000 ([23828.22 + 1984.92] / 3300) * 1000 (25813.14 / 3300) * 1000 = 7,822 Households per year (a reduction of 301 households or 4%)

Carbon Emission Offsetting Carbon Offsetting is very similar with regards to its components for calculation as that used for household savings. (Capacity * Capacity Factor * Hours in a Year (365) * Average gram of CO2 produced by traditional fuel sources which is potentially being offset) / 1000 For Killington the resulting carbon offsetting was 13,966 tonnes of CO2 saved per year Again the calculations need to be split for hours of operation and non- operation. I’ve missed out a few of the lines therefore it’s not so cluttered this time:- ((10.2 * 0.3 * 7787 * 521) + (6.8 * 0.3 * 973 * 521)) / 1000 (12414502.62 + 1034143.32) / 1000 = 13,449 tonnes of CO2 saved per year (a reduction of 517 tonnes of CO2 per year or 4%) It should also be noted that these calculations provide a worst case scenario of reduction as they do not take account of seasonal effect upon capacity factor i.e. they consider each month to be exactly the same throughout the year in terms of the output of the wind farm. However as the original assessment used a standardised capacity factor of 30% we thought it prudent to retain this through the consideration, so as to avoid dispute. Likewise the worst case scenario also provides some protection with regards to criticism over the impact any shutdown would have upon the benefits, as it is most likely to be even less of a reduction. This contribution to the reduced CO2 emissions of the UK’s target to reduce emission by 26% in 2020 is supported by both national and local policies.

Ministerial Statements The issues raised in the first Ministerial Statement have been addressed in previous sections of this report. The issue of benefits raised in the statement by the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change are set out below: • The applicant expects that the following benefits will accrue based on the applicant’s experience at a site near Doncaster: 5 in excess of £1m invested locally; 5 £4m worth of local contracts for tender; 5 business rates over the life of the project could be £1.37m;

Page 66 5 £1.25m Community Fund paying for rural Broadband infrastructure and supporting local groups; and 5 up to 60 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) jobs during construction and up to 25 FTE jobs in the supply chain. The provision of broadband is a policy objective of the Core Strategy and cannot be provided without the construction of the project. The other matters raised are material considerations in determining the application. A S106 legal agreement to support the community fund is being processed by the Legal Team.

CONCLUSION: With the mitigation of residential, ecological and heritage impacts the determination hinges on the balance between the benefits of the scheme and the conservation of the landscape particularly with the prospect of the boundary of the Yorkshire Dales National Park being closer to the site that it is at present. This is a balanced decision with policy supporting the benefits, though your officer’s conclude that the adverse visual and landscape impacts of the proposal outweigh the benefits. The development is considered unacceptable.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE for the reason below - Reason The proposed turbines would provide a prominent interruption of views of existing notable and particularly sensitive features such as the Howgill Fells and YDNP when viewed from the M6 and A684. In this respect the proposed siting of the turbines in this location does not minimise impact on people who travel through or use the area for recreation. The scale of the turbines is such that they will dominate the moorland site and the view (in part) from the M6 towards the Howgill Fells. Whilst it is acknowledged that Lambrigg does provide an indication of a large manmade structure within the surrounding landscape (albeit with turbines nearly half the size of those proposed), there are areas from where turbines at Killlington would be visible and that there would be a significant adverse visual effect. Places such as Millthrop do not have visible and comparable manmade structures currently and the introduction of turbines would compromise and erode the special landscape qualities that are found within the YDNP boundaries. These include a true sense of tranquillity, remoteness and a sense of solitude, which is rare in the UK today. In this instance the sense of tranquillity is particularly important. It is also considered that sequential cumulative visual impacts would be reinforced along the M6 corridor north and southbound by the development of Killington; turbines are prominent at reasonably regular intervals and appear in succession “shortly” after each other from the motorway at Lambrigg, Armistead, Burton in Kendal, Carnforth and Lancaster.

Page 67 This is contrary to: Policies CS7.7 and CS8.2 of South Lakeland Core Strategy; under saved South Lakeland Local Plan Policies C25, C26 and C31, guidance in Cumbria Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document; and the material planning considerations contained in the National Planning Policy Framework and Planning practice guidance for renewable and low carbon energy.

P & P The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in Statement determining this application by identifying matters of concern with the proposal and discussing those with the applicant. However, the issues are so fundamental to the proposal that it has not been possible to negotiate a satisfactory way forward and due to the harm which has been clearly identified within the reason for the refusal, approval has not been possible.

Page 68 Killington Wind Farm 3 Turbines Site.

Killington Wind Farm; Review of submitted LVIA

Prepared for; December 2013 South Lakeland District Council Page 69 Contents i Killington Wind Farm LVIA Review

1.00 Introduction.

2.00 Landscape and visual impact assessment; comments.

3.00 Comment of the Cumbria capacity for wind farms document.

4.00 Conclusions

Prepared for; December 2013 South Lakeland District Council Page 70 Section 1.00 01 Introduction

1.01 This statement has been prepared by NPS Group in partnership with South Lakeland District Council [SLDC] in relation to a planning application for the installation of three wind turbines. The project is known as Killington Wind Farm Development, [Application Number APP/ SL/2012 /0845 ]. The application relates to the proposed erection of three turbines with a maximum height to blade tip envelope of 132m.

1.02 Associated with the development would be the necessary infrastructure to support wind turbines including 5.0m wide access tracks hard standing and turning area, bridge / cul- verting works to existing watercourses, a temporary construction compound, temporary ‘satellite’ construction compounds, new access points from the B6284, Fairthorns Road and Old Scotch Road and turbine delivery overrun route, associated verge widening works [S278 Agreements] and a control building situated adjacent A684 at GR 597,928. The application was validated on 10th October 2012.

1.03 This report reviews the Landscape and Visual impacts of the proposed turbine develop- ment. It examines the contents of the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment pre- pared by Pegasus Consulting and included as a Chapter 6 of the Environmental State- ment submitted with the planning application by Banks Group.

1.04 The report also considers the scheme against criteria [specifi c to wind farms and tur- bines] developed by Cumbria County Council on behalf of the Local District Councils in relation to wind turbine development in the Supplementary Planning Document published in 2006 and adopted by South Lakeland District Council in October 2007. The LVIA provided by Pegasus does not refer directly to this document as a published source of reference, however subsequent clarifi cation provided by the applicant sets the context in which this document has been utilised.

1.05 The document; ‘ Cumbria Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document’ Parts 1, 2 and 3 supports ‘saved’ local plan policies, ‘saved’ policies in the joint structure plan 2005-2016 and policies in the emerging Local Development Frameworks being devel- oped by the South Lakeland District Council amongst others.

1.06 We have visited the site environs three times since our commission in November 2012 to specifi cally assess and appreciate the potential impacts of the three proposed Kil- lington wind turbines. 15 Of the photomontage view points identifi ed within the LVIA [ within 10km of the turbine site] were visited as a part of the fi rst visit. Within 5km of the proposal site a number of other locations were also visited to gauge the likely landscape and visual effects of the proposal.

Prepared for; December 2013 South Lakeland District Council Page 71 Section 1.00 02 Introduction

1.07 The Cumbria CC Wind Energy SPD provides both planning context and guidance for wind farm proposals within the county. The background and purpose of the report are set out in sections within the Cumbria CC Wind Energy documents. In accordance with the relevant Planning Policies; National Planning Policy C26 Wind Energy and C31 Cu- mulative Impact of Renewable Energy Projects [both adopted by SLDC] the Cumbrian Wind Energy SPD identifi es a range of criteria that should be considered in assessing the landscape and visual impact of a wind farm proposal including the capacity of the landscape to accommodate wind turbine development across the county. They are as follows;

a] Why the guidance is needed,

b] Guidelines for wind energy schemes,

c] Guidelines for cumulative effects,

d] Guidelines for good siting and design,

e] Guidelines for Landscape and visual issues,

f] Landscape capacity assessment and

g] Guidance on landscape and visual impact assessment.

1.08 It should be noted that the Cumbria CC Wind Energy SPD seeks to set out an appropri- ate framework and progression to developing a wind energy proposal and application. It states in Para 1.4 ‘ ... careful consideration also needs to be given to any effects that may arise from renewable wind energy schemes. Wind energy schemes are no excep- tion to this. Schemes need to be well designed, refl ect local circumstances and dem- onstrate how many environmental, social and economic impacts have been minimised by careful site selection, design and other measures. These are also material planning considerations and as such , these issues will need to be addressed on a site by site basis to determine the most acceptable scheme for a site.

As such it is a positive tool for the development of wind energy proposals.

Prepared for; December 2013 South Lakeland District Council Page 72 Section 2.00 03 Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment; comments.

2.01 The methodology used to undertake the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment [LVIA] is stated to be in accordance with the guidelines published by the Landscape Institute [LI] 2002, Guidelines for Landscape Character Assessment [2002] Countryside Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage and the Institute of Environmental Managers and Assessors [IEMA] 2004.

2.02 Consideration is given to the following documents; Photography and Photomontage in Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment [2011] Landscape Institute, SNH; Visual Representation of Wind Farms- Good Practice Guidance [March 2006], SNH; Assessing the Cumulative Effects of Onshore Wind Energy Developments [2012] , Siting and De- signing Wind Farms in the Landscape [2009]. and Making Space for Renewable Energy [210] Natural England.

2.03 These are the ‘Best Practice’ criteria we would expect to be used as a basis for an LVIA report of this nature and scope. In addition to this we would expect the applicant to refer to; Assessing the Impact of Small Scale Energy Proposals on the Natural Heritage published by SNH in Feb 2012 which has particuar relevance for development of up to 3 turbines.

2.04 The prepared visualisations meet the Visual Representation of Windfarms Good Prac- tice Guidance. The images that we have received [@ A1] indicate a vertical height of 270mm for a photomontage which exceeds the Good Practice Guidance which recom- mends a minimum image height of 200mm [SNH para 129].

A 50mm DSLR lens has been used to take the initial photographs which would generate a DSLR lens equivalent of a 75-80mm lens.

2.05 Turbine dimensions on the drawings have been confi rmed by Banks [ letter dated 21/10/2013] as 132m to blade tip for all illustrations with the exception of illustrations contained within Appendix 6.6 which were illustarted at 120m height. All hub heights are illustrated at 80m. The indicated viewing distance for the visualisations of 500mm is cor- rect.

2.06 We do acknowledge however that photomontages in themselves should never form the basis of a decision; they are to be used as a tool in the decision making process.

Prepared for; December 2013 South Lakeland District Council Page 73 Section 2.00 04 Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment; comments.

2.07 Within the LVIA text, direct reference is not made to the Landscape Capacity Study which forms a signifi cant section of Part 2 of the Cumbria County Council Wind Energy SPD [the document is however referred to within the Planning Statement and Design Evolution Statement submitted within the planning application]. The CCC WE SPD which provides detailed information specifi c to the locality in respect of wind turbine development is referred to in the text [para 6.155, 6.93 and 6.94] but is not referred to as a Published Guidance Document. Capacity is a material planning consideration in the context of the landscape character types. Subsequent information received from the Applicant in the form Cumbria Wind Energy SPD 2007 FN ME 061213 Further Analysis of Landscape and Visual Matters does respond to this issue.

2.08 The LVIA report states that the SNH document is developed for Scottish landscapes and the guidance is adapted for this situation. Adaptation of these guidelines would potentially be acceptable however the LVIA does not explain how the guidelines have been adapted to this locality nor offer any schedule or reference as to which elements of the SNH guidance have been adapted.

2.09 The CCC Wind Energy SPD denotes Sensitivity Ratings to wind energy developments. The LVIA report uses its own classifi cations for sensitivity of landscape character areas which are generally acceptable. However in our review consideration we defer to the CCC Wind Energy SPD ratings for consistency.

2.10 In the context of a professional study the assessor should provide a professional view to identify the nature of the level of effect on regional landscape character areas within 2km of the site which has not been included within LVIA Table 6.7.

2.11 The capacity for the landscape to accommodate the introduction of new turbines is referred to within a section title however it does not go on to discuss the capacity in rela- tion to the landscape character types. Whilst we acknowledge that this is a planning is- sue it is also inseparable from the visual and landscape impacts that are generated by a development of this type. Subsequent information received from the Applicant in the form Cumbria Wind Energy SPD 2007 FN ME 061213 Further Analysis of Landscape and Visual Matters does respond to this issue.

2.12 The LVIA text refers to the Landscape Character types that the site is situated within or adjacent to. The report correctly indicates that the site lies within National Character area 19; South Cumbria Low Fells. The report clearly states Para 6.70 that the site lies across two landscape character types 9b and 11b. Subsequent supporting information has been provided [document YOR 1925 South Cumbria Map]

Prepared for; December 2013 South Lakeland District Council Page 74 Section 2.00 05 Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment; comments.

2.13 The classifi cation noted in the LVIA for sensitivity in Table 6.5 [pg 69] is consistent with the CCC Wind Energy SPD for the moderate sensitivity of Character Sub Type 9b how- ever the classifi cation for 11b Moderate sensitivity is not consistent with the CCC Wind Energy SPD which classifi es the landscape to have a low / moderate sensitivity.

Effects on road and rail users

2.14 Visual effects on rail users are discussed in Para 6.304 and we would agree that there will be no effect on the west coast main railway line. The visual effects on the major roads such as the M6 and A684 are discussed through a separate section 6.371.

Effects on designated landscapes

2.15 The CCC Wind Energy SPD Part 2 is explicit; ‘Particular sensitivities in relation to the setting of national and international designations include; ‘ views from the western Howgill Fells in the Yorkshire Dales NP over to the low fells and back towards them from the A684 and M6’. a key composition of this is the identifi cation of the landscape capac- ity. The potential for visual confusion is also referred to whereby a wind farm is sited within or experienced from a number of different landscape character types.

2.17 The proposal would form a prominent focal point when viewed from the the M6. Views of the Howgill Fells would be interupted by the proposed turbines from open sections of the M6 [northbound], which would form notable competing and dominating [views of the Howgills not the YDNP] features within the landscape. The scale and form of the Howgill Fells would still be appreciated from viewpoints where the turbines are to the right of the main Howgill Fell massif.

Cumulative Effects

2.18 The LVIA report acknowledges the cumulative effects of Lambrigg and Killington and also to a lesser extent Armistead on the Landscape Character Types 9b and 11b and other regional Landscape Character types. The LVIA indicates that there are several existing and consented / under construction wind farms within 35km of the application site. We concur that the cumulative effect of the Armistead turbines with the Killington turbines is in accordance with the report fi ndings.

2.19 The designed layout of the Killington turbines reduces the combined [simultaneous] cumulative effect of the proposal in relation to the Lambrigg site. However the two sites would be perceived as a large group [6-9 turbines] from a limited number of viewpoints

Prepared for; December 2013 South Lakeland District Council Page 75 Section 2.00 06 Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment; comments.

where they are seen together in close proximity, they are circa 1200m apart ; the closest Lambrigg turbine is nearly as close to the Killington turbine [WTG 03] as the furthest Kil- lington turbine to the south which is circa 1100m away. This would, from a limited number of viewpoints visually exceed the capacity of the landscape character type for wind tur- bine development. However we acknowledge that the number of close viewpoints from which six or more turbines would be seen as a combined group is very limited.

2.20 The landscape character type and capacity are also importantly related to an appropriate scale of development . The proposal correctly reports that a small group [of turbines up to 120m] would be appropriate for this landscape character type; exceptionally a large group on broader topographic sweeps [which this site does not constitute]. In the con- text of the site and the Lambrigg site the intervening landscape does not form a broad topographic landscape sweep. The topography and scale of each site is different and they are visually separate at ground level. If the combination of Lambrigg and Killington is considered to create a large group then this would be a material consideration within these landscape character types.

2.21 The distance between the nearest turbines of each group when viewed from Winder will be 750m, When viewed from the Calf they would be circa 1000m apart which means that they will be viewed as two separate groupings. When viewed from Middleton Fell the WTG03 and the southernmost turbine of Lambrigg will only be circa 350m apart which means that over the 9km distance they are closely aligned and could be perceived as a large group of 6-9 turbines. However the design and siting of the Lambrigg turbines [height and colour] often makes them a recessive feature in the landscape when viewed from the east; accentuating the different groupings; especially when viewed from high ground such as the Middleton Fell and the Howgills.

2.22 The height of the turbines nacelle / hub is an important factor. The proposed height of 132m would place the hub height similar to the Lambrigg hubs heights; which would reinforce the perception of a large group from a limited number of viewpoints. The report refers to the reinforcement of the existing character however the turbine height of 132m could also be viewed as supporting the creation of a large group in a location where the capacity of the Landscape Character Type is not suffi cient to accommodate a large group.

Prepared for; December 2013 South Lakeland District Council Page 76 Section 3.00 07 Comment on the criteria in the ‘Cumbrian Landscape - Wind turbines in relation to the application site.

3.01 Landscape Character and Capacity

The proposed Killington turbines are located with the Local Landscape Character sub types 9b and 11b. The charactersitics of these two landscape character types are as fol- lows;

3.02 Key Characteristics; 9b Rolling Farmland and Heath;

• Shallow Relief plateau with ridges and hollows • Rolling Farmland • Occassional rocky outcrops • Rough pasture with wet fl ushes and semi heathland • Coniferous plantations • Narrow wooded valleys with wetland features

3.03 Key Characteristics; 11b Low Fells;

• Rolling low fells with rocky outcrops • Open improved pasture • Some areas of bracken, moorland and heather • Small woodlands and scrub on steeper slopes and by farms • Distant views along the Kent and Lune valley

3.04 The ‘simple moorland form and land cover’ of the 9b character type are viewed to be moderately suitable to accommodating wind turbine development in single or a small group. The ‘higher parts offer some aspects favourable for development’ of the 11b char- acter type which is viewed to be of low / moderate capacity for wind turbine development for a small group unless exceptional circumstances are demonstrated. The report states that the site lies across the two character types and document YOR1925 South Cumbria Map has been provided to support this

3.05 The combined cumulative effect of Lambrigg and Killington developments from particu- lar limited directions [generally the north and from close proximity south east], would be to appear as a large group [of 6-9 turbines]. This would not be in accordance with the landscape capacity statement for either the Landscape Character types 9b or 11b.

Prepared for; December 2013 South Lakeland District Council Page 77 Section 3.00 08 Comment on the criteria in the ‘Cumbrian Landscape - Wind turbines in relation to the application site.

Visual Impact

3.06 The proposed turbines will be within 2.4km of several large residential properties and will form part of the ‘Immediate Landscape Setting’. The Cumbria County Council guide- lines state that turbines over 95-120m high within 2.4m of a visual receptor are consid- ered to be prominent part of the view in that they are ‘a dominant focus, movement of turbines clear and may cllectively convey a distinct rythm’.

3.07 All of the properties within 2km have been considered as a part of the Residential Amen- ity aspect of the LVIA even though the CCC Wind Energy SPD uses 2.4km [Para 3.27] as a guiding distance for the immediate landscape.

3.08 The edge of Sedbergh is within 5km of the proposed turbine site and is close to 100m lower than the lower levels of the Killington site. whilst the turbines are not situated on the edge of an upland plataeux their potential size at 132m means they will be visible as a signifi cant or part skyline element when viewed from Sedbergh and Millthrop. The tur- bines appear above the scarp face running between Killington and Firbank. Other large scale industrial elements such as the M6, Roan Quarry and the Lambrigg Turbines are not visible from the same viewpoints.

3.09 There are a number of viewpoint locations from which the Magnitude of Change is such that the Signifi cance of Effect is judged to be Signifi cant, [viewpoints 2, 7, 8, 17, 22]. Whilst the LVIA report suggests that a signifi cant effect is not necessarily an anaccept- able one, signifi cant [adverse] effects are a material consideration.

3.10 The scale of the proposed turbines relates to the Howgills massif that forms part of the backdrop to the site however the moorland that characterises the site would be domi- nated by the turbines if their full height envelope of 132m is utilised.

Recreation and Transport Routes proposed turbines;

3.11 There are no footpaths or bridleways within 200m of the proposed turbines. There are however a number of bridleways within 2.4km of the proposal site. Viewpoints have been taken from close to these bridleways but not from the actual bridleway, for instance on Owlshaw Hill and the bridleway above Roan Quarry, which creates a more oblique viewpoint than from the BW itself. However there are transport routes within 200m of the proposed turbines; these include the A684, M6 and Old Scotch Road. The closest tur- bine to a transport route is WTG 02 which will be situated approximately 150m from Old Scotch road.

Prepared for; December 2013 South Lakeland District Council Page 78 Section 3.00 09 Comment on the criteria in the ‘Cumbrian Landscape - Wind turbines in relation to the application site.

Cumulative Visual Impact

3.12 Lambrigg and Armistead are within close proximity of the site and consideration has been given within the LVIA report to the cumulative effect of the visual combination of these sites with the proposed Killington site. The report considers this and in our opinion correctly judges that the cumulative effect when considered with Armistead will be lim- ited although Armistead will be seen from some viewpoints in combination or in succes- sion with both Killington and Lambrigg. There would also be the incidence of sequential visibility as the observer moves to another viewpoint for instance along the M6 [north and south ], B6254 and other local roads. The distance between Armistead and Killing- ton is suffi cient circa [5km] to ensure that when viewed in combination the perspective between the two sites will ensure that they appear as separate groups.

3.13 The proximity of the Killington and Lambrigg sites is within approximately 1200m of each other [Killington WTG 03 and Lambrigg GR 588934] which is as close as the furthest turbine [WTG 02] within the Killington development to WTG 03. The hub / nacelle height [altitude] of both Lambrigg and Killington is very similar [potentially reinforcing the ap- pearance of a group albeit a group that includes similar elements at a different scale] and from a number of the viewpoints selected they will both be seen within the same an- gle of vision. The appearance from these viewpoints / angles could be as a ‘large group’ of 8 turbines rather than two smaller groups of 3 and 5 turbines respectively. We con- sider that the LVIA report acknowledges the cumulative effect however not in the context of the landscape capacity.

3.14 In this instance we have requested further supporting information and the applicant has provided the supplemenatry document CCC WE SPD 2007 FN ME 061213 Further Analysis of Landscape and Visual Matters submitted in response to these points does describe the specifi c effect of Lambrigg and Killington when viewed in combination as a large group. In summary the report highlights that from a very limited number of view- points a number of the turbines would be seen together forming a larger group however the incidence of 8 turbines being viewed as one large group is minimal so the visual oc- curence of the large group within this landscape character type is also low. The Killing- ton and Lambrigg turbines would therefore generally not be perceived as one combined wind farm within the landscape.

3.15 The two sites have existing and proposed turbines of considerably different sizes and blade rotation speed; which would cause a degree of visual confusion in terms of land-

Prepared for; December 2013 South Lakeland District Council Page 79 Section 3.00 10 Comment on the criteria in the ‘Cumbrian Landscape - Wind turbines in relation to the application site.

scape perspective and creep across the landscape character types. The two different turbine sizes will sit within the same landscape character type and the proposed turbines are of a signifi cantly larger scale than the existing Lambrigg turbines. The proposal does however refl ect existing turbine patterns.

3.15 The Zone of Theoretical Infl uence Figure A6.6B identifi es where 1,2 and 3 turbines will be visible for a 120m Blade Tip Height rather than the potential 132m height of the pro- posed turbines.

Mitigation

3.16 As a small group of 132m [potentially] high turbines some of the possible mitigation measures are not possible to effect given the proximity of receptor points, access routes and residential properties. The LVIA indicates that the main form of mitigation has been through an iterative design process and does state ‘that it is neither possible or consid- ered appropriate to screen turbines’

3.17 The LVIA indicates that the turbines are likely to be coloured semi matt pale grey and are to have three blades [as indicated by the Photomontages]. The LVIA should indicate whether the design of the tower is to be circular in section in accordance with the pre- ferred design for Cumbria. When viewed in combination with Lambrigg from the limited number of viewpoints the design of the turbines; three blades, height of the hub would give a cohesive effect avoiding jarring and creating reasonable visual continuity although the size difference could be visually confusing in terms of perspective. They are more widely spaced [av 600m apart] than Lambrigg [av 300m apart] however this we consider is appropriate for the undulating topography of the site and the scale of the turbines. The proposed Killington turbine envelope is taller by 62m [to the blade tip] than Lambrigg [70m] which is generally at 260m elevation [base level]. WTG 03 is placed at a similar elevation to Lambrigg turbines and will appear to be considerably higher than the other turbines of Lambrigg and Killington when viewed in combination [if the full height of the turbine envelope is utilised].

3.18 The LVIA report is brief in terms of how the iterative design process has contributed to the layout of the three turbines on site which is the primary form of mitigation as identi- fi ed in the CCC Wind Energy SPD Part 2. However the layout and positioning on site avoids stacking effects within the Killington group, spaces the turbines 1100, 800 and

Prepared for; December 2013 South Lakeland District Council Page 80 Section 3.00 11 Comment on the criteria in the ‘Cumbrian Landscape - Wind turbines in relation to the application site.

500m apart and places the base of the turbines WTG 01 and 02 at low points on the site [circa 210m] which in our opinion generally creates a favourable asymetric composition of the turbine group given the constraints of the site. However this com- position will also mean the hub height WTG03 could be considerably higher than the other turbines in the group; if all of the turbines are constructed to the same blade tip height. It will also be potentially higher than the Lambrigg turbine blades if the full 132m high envelope is utilised.

3.19 Detailed design considerations such as hedges, tree planting, fencing, control building, access tracks and dry stone walling are essential elements in maintaining the fl ow of the landscape character types beneath the turbines and detailed design measures will be required to demonstrate what could be done on the site to reduce the impact of the long term infrastructure required to support the turbines to maintain the landscape character type beneath. This would include providing details of the aggregates to be used for the access tracks, the ground modelling required for the cut and fi ll of the access tracks to ensure that their introduction can be integrated as sensitively as possible.

3.20 The infrastructure could also be illustrated on the photomontages to give an im- pression of how these elements would appear on the site because they do have an impact on the landscape character. The drawings do not state whether the cable routes will be underground as they run alongside the access tracks and the applicant should confi rm the specifi cation on this element on the drawings as well as within the text of the LVIA [Para 6.127].

3.21 The proposed design and detailing of the control building and compound is not ad- dressed within the LVIA; the proposed location is in a prominent position when ap- proaching from the west on the A684 and to a lesser extent when approaching from the east. Elevations, materials and layouts must form a condition of any planning consent.

3.22 One of the key aspects of wind farm design is the ability to read and interpret the character of the landscape that fl ows continuously beneath the turbines. Careful detail design of the supporting infrastructure and mitigating elements would help promote this concept successfully.

3.23 The report does not address the mitigation measures that could be taken such as

Prepared for; December 2013 South Lakeland District Council Page 81 Section 3.00 12 Comment on the criteria in the ‘Cumbrian Landscape - Wind turbines in regards to the application site.

3.22 possible off site planting positioned in the fore or mid ground of views from residen- tial properties, farms or groups of properties. Such mitigation techniques may be benefi cial within the 25 year lifespan of the proposed turbine development; reducing the visual impact to properties on the periphery of Sedbergh or the long distance cycle route at Millthrop An appropriate scheme could be developed by the applicant or could form a condition of any consent.

3.23 Item Do the proposals meet the criteria in the report Landscape Character Yes Landscape Capacity Yes; although there would be intermittent transient views of a large group. Visual Impact No; in respect of particular sensitivities and views from the M6 east towards the Howgill Fells and from the YDNP Cumulative Land- Yes scape Impact Cumulative Visual Yes Impact Mitigation No; in respect of possible off site planting Guidance on form Yes generally and siting

Prepared for; December 2013 South Lakeland District Council Page 82 Section 4.00 13 Conclusions

4.01 In general terms the proposed turbines are compatible with the character of the im- mediate local landscape types 9b Rolling Farmland and Heath and 11b Low Fells. The turbines form a small group [of 3-5 turbines] which straddle the two landscape types. Both types of landscape have the capacity to accommodate a small group [or number of small groups] of turbines up to 120m as noted within the CCC WE SPD.

4.02 There are a limited number of viewpoints where the Lambrigg and Killington turbines would combine visually to form a large wind farm development; however these have intermittent and transient incidence.

4.03 Cumulative visual impacts do occur both in conjunction with Armistead and more so with Lambrigg. However whilst these are within the same fi eld of vision and are simultaneous they are also limited and transient in nature. Importantly from the east ie the Howgills and YDNP the developments of Lambrigg, Killington and Armistead would usually be seen as individual groupings which refl ect the CCC SPD guidance for the landscape character types 9b and 11b.

4.04 The specifi c location of the proposed turbines creates a prominent feature particulary when viewed from the M6 corridor from where it would be viewed in sequence with Lambrigg and Armistead. The location of the proposed turbines is not in accordance with the CCC SPD guidance with reference to ‘particular sensitivities’ of views towards the Howgills and YDNP from the A684 and M6. Therefore we do not concur with the LVIA report fi ndings that the proposal when viewed from the west towards the YDNP and the Howgills would not dominate the Howgill Fells and National Park beyond.

4.05 Viewpoints from sensitive receptors in the east would incur sigifi cant visual effects and medium to high levels of change. We concur that the Killington site itself does not con- sititute a peaceful backwater due to the prescence of the M6 and A684 and associated layby’s however there would be signifi cant visual effects on places such as Millthrop which is within the YDNP boundary and as such would constitute erosion of an area which has the special landscape qualities of the YDNP.

Our objections to the proposal are as follows;

4.06 The proposed turbines would provide a prominent interruption of views of existing nota- ble and particularly sensitive features such as the Howgill Fells when viewed from the M6. In this respect the proposed siting of the turbines in this location does not minimise impact on people who travel through or use the area for recreation. The scale of the turbines is such that they will dominate the moorland site and the view [in part] from the

Prepared for; December 2013 South Lakeland District Council Page 83 Section 4.00 14 Conclusions

M6 towards the Howgill Fells.

4.07 One of the key constraints identifi ed within the CCC WE SPD Capacity Statement is as follows [this relates to Landscape Character area 11];

“general absence of comparable man made structures”

4.08 We acknowlege that Lambrigg does provide an indication of a large man made struc- ture within the surrounding landscape [albeit with turbines nearly half the size of those proposed], however there are areas from where Killlington would be visible and that it is agreed that there would be signifi cant visual effect. Places such as Millthrop do not have visible and comparable man made structures currently and the introduction of turbines would compromise and erode the special landscape qualities that are found within the YDNP boundaries. These include a true sense of tranquility, remoteness and a sense of solitude, which is rare in the UK today. In this instance the sense of tranquility is particularly important.

4.09 Sequential cumulative visual impacts would be reinforced along the M6 corridor north and southbound by the development of Killington; turbines are prominent at reason- ably regular intervals and appear in succession ‘shortly’ after each other from the motorway at Lambrigg, Armistead, Burton in Kendal, and Lancaster.

4.10 There may be further limited scope to provide off-site planting to provide mitigation for the likely effects on recreational routes and sites.

Prepared for; December 2013 South Lakeland District Council Page 84 SCHEDULE A

Complex Planning Applications

SCHEDULE No: 2 SL/2013/0911

BURTON-in-KENDAL: Green Dragon Farm, off Tarn Lane, Burton- in-Kendal, Carnforth LA6 1JF

PROPOSAL: Installation of 2 wind turbines (35m high to blade tip)

Urban Wind Ltd

Website Link: http://applications.southlakeland.gov.uk/PlanningApplications/ detail.asp?AltRef=SL/2013/0911

E352314 N476121 30/01/2014

SUMMARY: Proposed siting of two 35 metre high wind turbines on agricultural land located adjacent to the M6 motorway to the east of Burton Services. The main issue arising from the application relates to visual and landscape impact of the structures upon the Arnside & Silverdale AONB and surrounding area. Deferred from the last meeting for site visit.

DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: Site Description The proposed turbines would be sited within a pasture field which adjoins the M6 motorway along its western boundary. The site is located approximately 0.5 km to the west of the Burton in Kendal, opposite Burton Services and close to the boundary with Lancaster City Council. The site is within in area of undulating open countryside and is bounded by mature hedgerows and a number of mature trees which partially screen the site from the wider area. The nearest residential properties to the site are at Heronsyke approximately 550 metres to the south east of the site and dwellings on the fringes of Burton in Kendal some 600 metres to the east and north east. A minor road known as Tram Lane, runs in an east/ west direction between Burton and the A6 to the south of the site. There are no statutory environmental or landscape designations on or immediately adjoining the site, however the boundary of the Arnside & Silverdale AONB is located 1.2km to the east of the site. Burton in Kendal conservation area is located some 500 metres to the west of the site at its closest point.

Page 85 A mixed employment and housing land allocation site is located some 400 metres to the east of the proposed turbines, and is within the same ownership as the site. Proposal The two 100 kW turbines would be three bladed structures measuring 23 metres to the base of the hub and 35 metres to the tip of the blades, which would be 24 metres in diameter. One of the turbines would be positioned towards the north western boundary of the field, approximately 70 metres from the carriageway of the M6, the other would be positioned some 90 metres to the south, towards the southern boundary of the field. The turbines would each require a reinforced concrete foundation measuring 10 metres square and an area of hardstanding to support the crane for the erection of the structures. The existing access track into the field would be upgraded to accommodate the construction vehicles. It is estimated that the turbines would generate 290,000 kW of electricity which would be connected directly to the grid. The Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment submitted with the application comprises a brief description referring to the submitted photomontages and a plan indicating the Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV). The applicants state that the visibility of the turbines will be primarily confined to a radius of 3.4 km from the site and that the photomontages demonstrate that the turbines will frequently be screened from view by intervening vegetation. No reference is made to the potential visual impact of the turbines upon the Arnside and Silverdale AONB. The applicants have subsequently submitted a cumulative impact assessment with specific reference to the recently approved 70 metres turbine at Burton Services. The applicants conclude that although the cumulative impact of the development will increase when viewed in conjunction with the consented turbine, it would effectively dwarf the proposed turbines and as such would be the predominant visual landmark on the landscape. The submitted noise report has been updated to include the potential cumulative noise impact arising from the proposed turbines together with the adjacent consented turbine. The report indicates that the combined potential noise level at a higher wind speed would reduce to 35dB (which is considered to be an acceptable level) at a distance of 395 metres from the site. The nearest third party residential property is some 550 metres from the site and the allocated residential site is at its closest point 400 metres. The report concludes that residential amenity is not anticipated to be adversely affected by noise, but the applicants would be willing to accept a condition to ensure compliance with noise criteria. No specific ecology report has been submitted, although the supporting statement includes reference to a desk top ecological data consultation.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT: A Planning application was submitted earlier this year for the siting of three 35 metre high wind turbines under reference SL/2013/0421 on the site. The application was subsequently withdrawn due to concerns arising about the adequacy of the supporting documents. Permission was granted in August this year for the siting of a 70 metre high wind turbine on land adjacent to Burton Services, some 300 metres to the west of this site.

Page 86 The site of the turbine is largely within Lancaster City Council’s administrative area, although because of the close proximity and the potential for the blades to encroach over the boundary, an application was also submitted to South Lakeland District Council under reference SL/2013/0401.

CONSULTATIONS: Burton in Kendal Parish Council Object, on the grounds that: The development would adversely affect the character and appearance of the • rolling farmland that surrounds the village. The turbines would be a visible anomaly when seen from all the many local • access areas. Importantly the turbines would be a particular concern to the housing land • allocation site adjacent to the proposed turbine site. The applications for wind turbines in the M6 corridor appear to be being made • without any overall plan or consideration for the total effect that they will have.

Lancaster City Council Object. Although individually the visual impact of the turbines may be acceptable there are significant concerns regarding the cumulative impact with the approved turbine at Burton Services. There has been no consideration of the cumulative impact of the proposed turbines which will be clearly visible from within the Arnside and Silverdale AONB to the west. Given the difference in size between the approved and proposed turbines, they will also appear disproportionate which is likely to add to the visual prominence of the structures.

Highways Agency No objections.

Cumbria Highways No objections.

SLDC Environmental Protection Officer I have reviewed the Noise information provided and I would like to see further analysis of the impact that the turbines will have on the closets residential receptors. Analysis should be made with reference to ETSU Noise Criteria. The cumulative effect of the two turbines and the proposed turbine at Burton Services should be examined. The use of noise contour maps might be beneficial. The basis of the assessment should be the Sound Power levels of the wind turbines across a range of wind speeds.

Page 87 Natural England From the information available we are unable to advise on the potential significance of impacts from this proposal upon the AONB. The submitted maps do not include this, the closest and most significant designations constraint, nor is there any detailed explanation of the proposals impacts upon the AONB. No Landscape and Visual Assessment Methodology has been outlined in the submission. Based upon the proposed location of the turbines, we note that they appear to be closer than 50 metres to features bats may use for foraging in which case consideration needs to be given to re-siting them to ensure the turbine sweep is a minimum of 50 metres.

Arnside & Silverdale Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Partnership It is the view of the AONB Executive Committee that this proposed development would have a significant detrimental impact upon the landscape and special qualities of the AONB and consider that this proposal is contrary to both national and local planning policy. The proposed turbines would be prominent from farmland, parkland and limestone hills of the eastern margins of the AONB, and from viewpoints towards the AONB from Farleton Fell. The turbines would be visible from the villages of Yealand Conyers, Yealand Redmayne and Yealand Storrs in the middle distance with varying degrees of screening. Significant harm to the landscape character is likely as the application would result in a visual group of three turbines. There are very serious concerns regarding the cumulative landscape impacts of the AONB from large wind turbine developments along the M6 corridor adjacent to the eastern boundary of the AONB.

Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE- Cumbria Association)

The applicant has failed to demonstrate that there will not be an impact on the landscape setting of the Arnside & Silverdale AONB. The application also fails to demonstrate that there will not be a cumulative impact in combination with other turbines in the area. The development would have a significant adverse impact on the character of the AONB. The site lies only 1.2 km form the AONB boundary and these turbines in conjunction with the approved turbine at Burton Services will form a group of mismatched turbines which will be incongruous in the surrounding high quality landscape. This will impact on residents’ and visitors’ enjoyment of the AONB’s landscape and special qualities. The applicants have also not consulted the Cumbria Biodiversity Data Centre to acquire environmental information about the site.

NATS (Air Traffic) No safeguarding objections.

Arqiva (Television transmission) No objections.

Page 88 Ministry of Defence No objections.

Neighbours and Others A total of 6 letters of objection to the proposal have been received at the time of writing. The main concerns raised are as follows: • The proposed turbines will be seen from the motorway against the view of Farleton Knott and will greatly diminish the scenic value of the area. • Turbines are turning the area into a dismal, unsightly, urban landscape hardly appropriate for an area relying on tourism. • Two structures of this height and distinctive appearance would have a significant harmful effect on the appearance of the local landscape of rolling green pastures and low crags, and that visual damage would be exacerbated by the proximity of the proposed 70 metre turbine recently approved at Burton Services. • The granting of permission for this proposal would set a precedent for further similar developments to the detriment of the surrounding landscape. • The statistics do not add up, such would operate only at a maximum of 30% efficiency; the suggested site is not a particularly windy one. • The proposed turbines would be very close to the AONB and would therefore have a severe visual impact on its setting. • The turbines would have an adverse visual impact upon the village of Burton which has a visitor trade and the proposal would be at odds with the policy encouraging rural tourism.

POLICY ISSUES: National Planning Policy Framework Section 10 Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change , states that planning plays a key role in supporting the delivery of renewable and low carbon energy and associated infrastructure. When determining applications, LPAs should approve the application if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable. Section 11 Conserving and enhancing the natural environment , states that great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, the Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty.

Planning Practice Guidance for Renewable and Low Carbon Energy A new Government guidance document, issued in July 2013, sets out the main planning considerations relating to wind turbine applications. This replaces the Companion Guide to PPS22 and is a material consideration in planning decisions. These include: • The need for renewable energy does not automatically override environmental protections.

Page 89 • Cumulative impacts require particular attention, especially the increasing impact that wind turbines can have on landscape and local amenity as the number of turbines in an area increases. • Local topography is an important factor in assessing whether wind turbines could have a damaging effect on landscape and recognise that the impact can be as great in predominantly flat landscapes as in hilly or mountainous areas. • Great care should be taken to ensure heritage assets are conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance, including the impact of proposals on views important to their setting. • Proposals in National Parks and AONBs, and in areas close to them where there could be an adverse impact on the protected area will need careful consideration. • Protecting local amenity is an important consideration which should be given proper weight in planning decisions.

South Lakeland Core Strategy Policy CS5 seeks to ensure that new development safeguards and enhances the natural environment – notably the AONB and international designations within the area, and supports habitat creation. It states that when considering development proposals within or affecting the setting of the Arnside and Silverdale AONB, high priority should be given to: the conservation and enhancement of the character of the landscape, including its historic dimensions; the protection and, where appropriate, enhancement of flora, fauna and geological features; and, safeguarding these identified attributes from inappropriate change and development. Policy CS 7.7 supports in principle appropriately located renewable energy schemes. It is acknowledged that there are some energy sources which need to be remote from residential areas and other sensitive land uses, and projects should avoid any harmful impact upon the historic environment. Policy CS8.2 states that development proposals should be informed by and be sympathetic to the distinctive character landscapes identified in the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit; the Arnside and Silverdale AONB Landscape and Seascape Assessment; features identified in relevant settlement studies and local evidence; and, the Arnside and Silverdale AONB Management Plan. It is stated that development proposals should demonstrate that their location, scale, design and materials will protect, conserve and, where possible, enhance: the special qualities of the environment associated with the nationally designated areas of the National Parks and Arnside and Silverdale AONB including their settings; the special qualities and local distinctiveness of the area; distinctive settlement character; and, the setting of, and views into and from the AONB, the National Parks, conservation areas and individual built/manmade features that contribute to landscape and settlement character. Policy CS8.6 seeks to safeguard and where possible enhance the historic environment, including their characteristic settings and any attributes that contribute to a sense of local distinctiveness. Such assets include conservation areas.

Page 90 Development Plan Document (DPD): Local Plan Land Allocations Saved Policy C26 of the Local Plan covers wind energy proposals and states that their acceptability will be judged according to whether a number of defined criteria can be satisfied. One of the criteria is that the proposal’s energy contribution and other benefits outweigh any significant adverse impact on the character and appearance of the landscape, the amenity of residential properties, nature conservation, archaeological or geographical interests.

Other Material Considerations The Cumbria Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Guidance Adopted in 2007, this document provides guidance for the consideration of wind energy developments. Part 2 of the guidelines provides specific guidance on landscape and visual issues and identifies the potential capacity of various landscape types throughout the county to accommodate different scales of wind farms. The site is within an area designated as drumlins and is considered to have low/moderate capacity to accommodate single turbines or small cluster sized developments. This reflects a moderate/high sensitivity overall, rarity and moderately strong historical and geomorphological interests and cultural associations. It states that turbine development is likely to intimidate the small scale nature of the component hills and ridges and that the restricted views created by this relief are vulnerable to visual dominance, an issue likely to be of heightened significance in South Lakeland which has a heavy pattern of small dispersed settlements.

Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit This document was prepared by Cumbria County Council in conjunction with the district authorities in March 2011. The site is located in/adjacent to an area identified as drumlin field. The key characteristics of this landscape are tracts of high drumlins; rounded tops with steep sides; distinct landform grain; hedges and stone walls from strong boundaries; streams and wet hollows are found in the valleys and dips between the drumlins; farms and development often nestle in intersecting valleys; narrow lanes with tall hedges and steep banks criss-cross through the drumlins. With regards to development, the guidance states that infrastructure developments such as large scale wind energy and pylons could cut across the grain of the landscape and introduce structures that dominate the drumlin characteristics. It advises that the siting of large scale wind energy should be avoided in open and prominent areas where they could degrade the rural character of the area. The cumulative impact of separate turbine developments within a locality is also a material planning consideration.

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: This application has been determined to accord with the rights and limitations of the Act in relation to Article 6 (Right to a fair and public hearing), Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence), Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and protection of property).

Page 91 ASSESSMENT: The main issues in this case are considered to be the landscape and visual impact of the proposed turbines on the character and appearance of the surrounding rural landscape, and the potential impact of the proposal upon residential amenity.

Landscape and Visual Impact The proposed 35 metre high turbines would be relatively significant structures. They would be installed within an open area of farmland which forms part of a relatively unspoilt area of rolling landscape. The boundary of the Arnside & Silverdale AONB is only 1.2 km to the west of the site. Section 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that great weight should be given to conserving the landscape of AONBs, which have the highest status of protection. The photomontages and ZTV information provided by the applicants confirm that the proposed turbines will be highly visible from the surrounding area, particularly from the west, the south west and south and east, including from within the AONB and views towards the AONB. No analysis of this impact has been provided by the applicants. The turbines would be viewed both against the skyline and against the background of the sensitive surrounding landscape. As such it is considered that the proposed development would be contrary to national and local policies which seek to protect the designated landscape of the AONB from harmful developments. It is acknowledged that the M6, Burton Services and associated structures have an adverse visual impact at a localised level and it could be contended that the landscape in the area has already been compromised to some extent by this infrastructure. However, the scale and nature of the proposed turbines would have a much wider impact on the landscape. Additionally when the cumulative impact of the proposal is considered with the larger turbine recently granted consent adjacent to Burton Services the result would be the creation of a an incongruous group of vertical structures of differing heights. It is considered that the proposal would result in and unacceptable cumulative visual impact. Members will note that objections have been received from the Arnside and Silverdale AONB Partnership, the Campaign to Protect Rural England, Natural England and Lancaster City Council with specific reference to the potential harmful impact of the proposal upon the AONB.

Impact upon Residential Amenity The proposed turbines are at a sufficient distance from the nearest residential properties at Heronsyke and the western fringes of Burton in Kendal so as not to have a significant adverse impact upon their general amenity, or issues arising from shadow flicker. However, the assessments have not taken into account the likely impacts upon the housing land allocation at Green Dragon Farm which is located 400 metres to the east of the site at its closest point and is within the same ownership. The Environmental Protection Officer has confirmed that the additional noise data information submitted is considered to be sufficient to demonstrate that the development would not result in unreasonable noise impact specific to these properties, including when taken into consideration collectively with the approved turbine at Burton Services.

Page 92 Other issues There appear to be no issues arising from the proposal with regard to aviation impacts or impact upon transmission or telecommunication networks. There is an outstanding issue with regard to the ecological impacts in that the turbines appear to be within 50 metres of boundary hedgerows. The standing advice from Natural England refers to the requirement to provide a bat survey for turbines located within 50 metres of hedgerows or trees where bats are likely to forage, alternatively the turbines could be repositioned further away from these features. The consultation response received from Natural England has been forwarded to the applicant. But no response has been received.

CONCLUSION: The open nature of the landscape in this area and the proximity to the AONB is such that the installation of two turbines of this scale would appear as extremely prominent vertical structures when viewed from the surrounding public vantage points, both from the road network and footpaths which pass close to the site and from further afield. The landscape is such that they would be silhouetted against the skyline from most viewpoints, thus accentuating its height and prominence. The presence of a larger turbine which has been approved on adjacent land at Burton Services would further exacerbate this visual impact by creating a mismatched group of large vertical structures. Although it is recognised that wind turbines have wider environmental, economic and energy benefits, it is considered that in this case the harmful visual and landscape impact of the proposed turbines in particular, outweighs the potential benefits in this particular case and the application is recommended for refusal.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE for the reasons below - Reason (1) The proposed turbines would appear as prominent vertical structures which would appear incongruous in their surroundings and visible from a wide area. As a consequence, the turbines will have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the landscape, and would thus be in conflict with the aims and objectives of Policies CS5, CS7.7 and CS8.2 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy and saved Policy C26 of the South Lakeland Local Plan.

Reason (2) The proposed turbine would have a significant adverse visual impact upon both the setting and the special qualities of the Arnside & Silverdale AONB, and as such the proposal would be contrary to Section 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework and policy CS5 of the South Lakeland Core Strategy.

Reason (3) The close proximity of the proposed development to the adjacent approved turbine in the locality would result in a harmful cumulative impact upon the surrounding area, contrary to Policies CS7.7 and CS8.2 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy.

Page 93

Reason (4) In the absence of appropriate ecology survey information, there is insufficient information to determine the likely impact of the proposed development upon protected species in the vicinity of the site.

P & P The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in Statement determining this application by identifying matters of concern with the proposal and discussing those with the applicant. However, the issues are so fundamental to the proposal that it has not been possible to negotiate a satisfactory way forward and due to the harm which has been clearly identified within the reasons for the refusal, approval has not been possible.

Page 94 SCHEDULE A

Complex Planning Applications

SCHEDULE No: 3 SL/2013/1166

BURTON-in-KENDAL: Land immediately to the east of 29 Morewood Drive, Burton-in-Kendal, LA6 1NE

PROPOSAL: Single Dwelling

Mr Graeme Crayston

Website Link: http://applications.southlakeland.gov.uk/PlanningApplications/ detail.asp?AltRef=SL/2013/1166

E353332 N476654 30/01/2014

SUMMARY: Outline application for the erection of a bungalow. In principle the dwelling would be of a similar size and scale to the neighbouring properties. It would be cut into the side of the slope so as to attempt to minimise the impact of the development. The dwelling is located outside of the settlement boundary and given that the Council can demonstrate a five year housing supply (including a 20% buffer) would be contrary to the development strategy. The proposed dwelling would also be out of keeping with the existing building pattern for the area and would create an incongruous feature that would have a detrimental impact on the character of the area.

DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL: Site description The application site is an area of land to the east of 29 Morewood Drive. The site is described as residential garden land. At the time of the site visit the land was laid in grass, was mowed and had children’s football equipment in situ. The land slopes up from east to west and continues to rise after the site boundary. The land is surrounded by open fields to the north, east and west. Residential properties are located to the west, the northwest and southwest. The application site is located outside of the settlement boundary of Burton-in-Kendal but is directly adjacent to it.

Page 95 Proposal The application seeks outline planning approval for a detached bungalow. Submitted drawings show the proposed bungalow measuring 13.8m x 7.8m and would have a maximum height of similar to the other bungalows in the street. Whilst this is an outline application, these measurements give a general idea as to the scale of the development. The existing boundary fence would be retained around the site and vehicular access would be gained by widening the existing access over the existing public footpath. A turning head and parking area large enough for 2no. vehicles would be provided to the front of the property.

CONSULTATIONS: Burton in Kendal Parish Council Comments to be received by 17 th January 2014 (extension to time allowed).

Cumbria Highways To be reported.

Neighbours / Others One letter of objection to the proposal has been received from a neighbouring resident raising the following concerns: • the location is outside of the Development Boundary; • the site lies in the open countryside; • Policy CS6.4 does not support the development; • the land was originally agricultural; • the addition of 1no. dwelling would not be sustainable in terms of the NPPF; • it does not make a contribution to the 5 year housing supply; • the development would set a dangerous precedent for future similar developments; • the proposal has not been put forward to meet a particular demand; • access across the public footpath is dangerous; • development would create additional traffic; • raised land level means property would dominate the surrounding area; and • property would have an impact on privacy of neighbouring dwelling.

Page 96 POLICY ISSUES: National Planning Policy Framework Paragraph 14 stated that at the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking. For decision-taking this means: • approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay. Paragraph 49 states that housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. Paragraph 55 states that to promote sustainable development in rural areas housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities.

South Lakeland Core Strategy Policy CS1.1 outlines criteria for new development following clear Sustainable Development Principles. It is stated that most new developments should be directed to existing service centres where there is adequate service and infrastructure capacity to accommodate the required levels of development. A sequential approach to development is advocated firstly seeking use of existing buildings and previously developed land within settlements; secondly using other suitable infill opportunities within settlements; and, thirdly seeking the development of other land where this is well located in relation to housing, jobs, other services and infrastructure. Policy CS1.2 states that development will be concentrated in the Principal Service Centres of Kendal and Ulverston; then in the Key Service Centres of Grange-over- Sands, Kirkby Lonsdale and Milnthorpe. It requires that 11% of new housing and employment development will be in the network of smaller villages and hamlets. Its target is 28% of new housing development on previously developed land. It is stated that no development boundaries will be identified for the smaller villages and hamlets with new small-scale infilling and rounding off development to be permitted outside the service centres in order to satisfy local need across the numerous smaller villages and hamlets scattered across the District. It is stated that exceptionally, new development will be permitted in the open countryside where it has an essential requirement for a rural location, is needed to sustain existing businesses, provides for exceptional need for affordable housing, is an existing building or involves the appropriate change of use of an existing building. The terms “infilling” and “rounding-off” are defined in paragraph 2.25 of the Core Strategy. Infilling is defined as building taking place on a vacant plot in an otherwise built-up street frontage; rounding-off is defined as the completion of an incomplete group of buildings on land which is already partially developed, in such a way that will either complete the local road pattern or finally define and complete the boundaries of the group. Policy CS6.4 states that housing development proposals outside of settlement boundaries in the Service Centres, and where it does not constitute infilling and

Page 97 rounding off in smaller villages and hamlets without boundaries will only be considered where they provide 100% affordable housing under the following criteria: • there is a clear level of evidence of local support for the scheme, having regard to the views of the Parish Councils within the Local Area Partnership; • there is a clear and robust evidence of housing need; • the housing will be affordable in perpetuity and for people with a local connection; • the scheme is of scale and style appropriate to its immediate surroundings; • there is clear evidence of the viability of the scheme; and • the scheme demonstrates good design that is sympathetic to the local area. Policy CS6.6 requires that the Council will seek to make effective and efficient use of land and buildings. It will seek to ensure at least 28% of housing development takes place on previously developed land and buildings. The policy provides a target density of at least 30 dwellings per hectare, with certain exceptions cited. Policy CS8.2 Protection and Enhancement of Landscape and Settlement Character states that development proposals should be informed by and be sympathetic to the distinctive character landscapes identified in the Cumbria Landscape Character Guidance and Toolkit. Proposals should demonstrate that their location, scale, design and materials will protect and conserve the special qualities and local distinctiveness of the area. CS8.10 Design requires that the siting, design, scale and materials of all new development is of a character which maintains or enhances the quality of the landscape or townscape and should in keeping with local vernacular.

CS9.2 Developer contributions states that the Council will require new developments to secure necessary improvements to physical, social/community and green infrastructure where they are needed to make the development acceptable.

Development Plan Document (DPD): Local Plan Land Allocations With the adopted DPD, it is confirmed that the Council has a five year supply of housing land. The Inspector’s conclusions re-enforce the alignment of the Core Strategy with the National Planning Policy Framework in respect of 5 year land supply and add renewed weight to the adopted Development Plan policies in the Core Strategy - in particular Policies (CS1.2, CS6.1 and CS6.4) relating to the scale and distribution of new housing development. This means in considering applications particularly housing developments are considered against the development plan policies first and should only refer to NPPF if there are more up-to-date policies than in the Core Strategy and Local Plan.

Council 2013 - 2017 The Council has four priorities, the economy, housing, environment and culture and wellbeing. It states that: “by 31 March 2015 the Council will increase the supply of housing land enabling an increase in the number of net additional homes in South Lakeland” and that affordable homes will make up 35% or more of the total number

Page 98 of homes securing planning consent within the South Lakeland Planning Authority Area.

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: This application has been determined to accord with the rights and limitations of the Act in relation to Article 6 (Right to a fair and public hearing), Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence), Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and protection of property).

ASSESSMENT: The key issues relate to: • the principle of residential development, housing land supply and affordable housing provision; • the impact of the proposal on the character of the locality, and • the impact on residential amenity.

The principle of development The site is located in the open countryside, outside of the settlement boundary and on a Greenfield site. Due to its location at the end of the street, with open fields on three sides of the site, the development site does not fall within the definition of infilling or rounding off. In exceptional circumstances, new dwellings are allowed outside of settlement boundaries. Core Strategy Policy CS1.2 states that: “Exceptionally, new development will be permitted in open countryside where it has an essential requirement for a rural location, is needed to sustain existing businesses or provides for exceptional needs for affordable housing.” The development does not fall into any of these categories as it would not provide affordable housing, nor would it provide a dwelling for someone employed in agriculture or forestry. The applicant, in his supporting statement, has argued that whilst the development is located outside of the settlement boundary, it is located within a sustainable location, relatively close to shops and services. Whilst this may be the case, with the adoption of the Council’s Development Plan Document: Local Plan Land Allocations, the Council can now demonstrate a full 5 year housing supply removing the need for approving developments contrary to policy. The Council, in the DPD: Local Plan Land Allocations, has assessed the need for housing in the Burton-in-Kendal area and allocated a sufficient number of houses on more preferable sites, namely, East of Boon Town (23 dwellings), East of Hutton Close (31 dwellings) and Land at Green Dragon Farm (86 dwellings), thereby removing the need for approving sporadic piecemeal development on the edge of Burton-in-Kendal. It is therefore considered that the proposed development does not accord with Core Strategy Policies CS2.1 and CS6.4 as it is a Greenfield site, located outside the settlement boundary and the Council can already demonstrate a 5 year housing supply.

Page 99 The proposed location of the dwelling and impact on landscape and settlement character The proposed dwelling is to be sited to the east of Moorfield Drive. The surrounding area is relatively uniform with the existing properties coming to an abrupt end to the west of the application site. This is marked by an existing wall which runs north to south. There is some scope in the Core Strategy for the infilling or rounding off of developments but this relates to development outside Principal and Key Service Centres where there are no settlement boundaries. The settlement boundary of Burton in Kendal has been confirmed by the recent adoption of the Land Allocations DPD. The erection of a dwelling in this location could therefore not be classed as infilling or rounding off as the development would be located to the east of the rest of the dwellings outside the defined settlement boundary. Whilst the applicant has shown that it would be cut into the existing slope it would still create an incongruous feature which would be highly visible from the surrounding area. It is therefore considered that the proposed development does not accord with Core Strategy Policies CS8.2 and CS8.10 as the development is not of a character which maintains or enhances the quality of the landscape and does not fit in with the pattern of the local settlement.

Impact on residential amenity An objection has been received with regards to the development with concerns over the impact on the amenity of 12 Vicarage Close. As this application is for outline planning permission it is only the principle of the development that is being assessed.

It is considered that due to the size of the plot and the separation distances involved, it would be possible to design a bungalow that would not lead to a significant loss of amenity or privacy for the neighbouring properties.

CONCLUSION: The proposed dwelling is located outside of the settlement boundary of Burton in Kendal and given that the Council can demonstrate a five year housing supply (including a 20% buffer) would be contrary to the development strategy. The proposed dwelling in the open countryside would also be out of keeping with the existing building pattern for the area and would create an incongruous feature that would have a detrimental impact on the character of the area.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE for the reasons below - Reason (1) The proposal would result in an unjustified new residential dwelling within the open countryside, which would be contrary to the principles of sustainable development within the National Planning Policy Framework and contrary to the Council’s development strategy for housing as set out in Policies CS1.2, and CS6.4 of the adopted South Lakeland Core Strategy.

Page 100 (2) The construction of a dwelling in the proposed location would have a harmful impact upon the character of the surrounding area, creating an incongruous feature at the end of Morewood Drive which would not fit in with the pattern of the local settlement, contrary to Policies CS8.2 and CS8.10 of the South Lakeland Core Strategy.

P & P The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in Statement determining this application by identifying matters of concern with the proposal and discussing those with the applicant. However, the issues are so fundamental to the proposal that it has not been possible to negotiate a satisfactory way forward and due to the harm which has been clearly identified within the reasons for the refusal, approval has not been possible.

Page 101 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 102 Item No.7

South Lakeland District Council PLANNING COMMITTEE 30 JANUARY 2014 A REPORT ON MONTHLY ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY BETWEEN 1 NOVEMBER - 30 NOVEMBER 2013

PORTFOLIO: Not applicable

REPORT FROM: David Sykes - Director (People and Places) REPORT AUTHOR: Mark Balderson – Planning Enforcement Officer

WARDS: All

KEY DECISION NO: Not applicable

1.0 EXPECTED OUTCOME 1.1 To inform Members about planning enforcement activity between 1 November and 30 November 2013. This report aims to provide a brief and informative insight into current enforcement cases, action taken and on-going investigations.

2.0 RECOMMENDATION 2.1 It is recommended that Members (1) note the contents of this Report and Appendix 1 and 2 and (2) authorise all necessary enforcement action to remedy the breaches of planning control identified in the report (13.254).

3.0 BACKGROUND AND PROPOSALS 3.1 Enforcement Activity: November 2013

Cases on hand at 1 November 2013 278 New cases 21 Total cases closed 30 Cases on hand at 30 November 2013 269

Page 103 3.2 Enforcement cases for which Committee consideration is sought: 3.2.1 13.254 Rear of 49 priory Lane Grange Over Sands Introduction Planning Permission (SL/2012/0210) was granted in May 2012 to erect a single story dwelling in the rear garden of 49 Priory Lane, Grange-over-Sands. At the time of granting permission careful consideration was given to the effect the new dwelling would have on its surroundings and neighbouring dwellings. It has recently been brought to the Enforcement Officer’s attention that the building has not been built in accordance with the approved plans and as such resulted in un-neighbourly overlooking with a dominant presence in the locality.

Background Number 49 Priory Lane was sold approximately 3 years ago. The new owners sectioned off a large part of the rear garden and submitted an application to erect a single storey dwelling. The proposal received 6 letters of objection with a common objection that the site is too small for such a development and that it would cause un-neighbourly overlooking. The agent was contacted and informed that it is proposed to refuse the application, on the grounds that the building would have a significant impact on neighbouring properties, in terms of mass and dominance with an overbearing design and position, and a detrimental impact on the character of the area. On the basis of the comments and officer’s advice, the owners instructed their agent to withdraw the application so they could consider their options. Three months later the agent submitted a revised scheme and application. The new proposal repositioned the dwelling nearer to the southeast boundary, reduced the buildings height and set it lower into the ground. The new scheme was approved with conditions attached addressing the points raised by objectors. Since the court decisions in the Sage, Henry Boot and Reprotech cases, there is now a public law principle that development should be built strictly in accordance with the approved plans both internally and externally. From these cases, the system of making planning applications for changes was introduced by the Government, and the process of approving alterations by exchange of letters ceased. In addition to this condition 5 attached to the grant of permission states, no development is to commence before the submission of plans approved in writing, showing the finished floor levels in relation to a fixed datum point. The condition goes further to state that the house shall be built in strict accordance to the levels in the said plans. The significance of this condition is that it is defined as condition precedent, if a condition cannot be discharged once development is commenced, then it can never be discharged and the development is then unauthorised.

The Site The site is a garden to an existing single storey dwelling located in a modern residential area of Grange-over-Sands. The estate is built on sloping land

Page 104 which levels out towards the rear of 49 Priory Lane. The land the proposed building is built on is elevated in comparison to 49 and 47 Priory Lane. The original rear garden to number 49 measured 27m x 12m, the area set aside for the new dwelling measures 20m x 12m.

Site Location Plan

Harm/Breach The proposal to erect a dwelling on this site was always going to be contentious because of the close proximity to 47 and 49 Priory Lane, and the fact that the site is elevated in relation to 47 and 49. During the planning process the planning officer went to great detail to ensure the building is set low in to the site. As a result of the building not been set lower in to the site, as shown in the approved plans, the effect of loss of privacy and overbearing is evident.

Attached to the grant of permission is condition 5, which was attached principally to address, and to ensure the new dwelling would not have an adverse effect on the existing dwellings and its locality due to its height.

Condition 5 Prior to the commencement of development a plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority showing the finished floor level of the house in relation to a readily

Page 105 identifiable fixed datum. The house shall then be built strictly in accordance with this level.

The developer commenced building the house without first submitting plans to discharge condition 5 and therefore is in breach of planning control.

Policy South Lakeland Core Strategy Policy CS8.2 Protection of landscape and settlement character: development should be sympathetic to the distinctive landscape character. Saved policies of the adopted South Lakeland Local Plan. Policy S2: Design code. All new development is expected to take account of South Lakeland Design Code. Character, setting, context and proportion. Policy S3: Landscaping: High standard of landscaping required new and integrating existing landscaping. Policy C24: Watercourse and Coastal Margin. Development would not be permitted if it would have an adverse impact on landscape, conservation or recreation value.

Action and Remedy Members are requested to authorise all necessary enforcement action to remedy the breach by dismantling the building.

3.3 An update on enforcement cases involving enforcement action: 3.3.1 An update on those cases involving formal enforcement action is attached as Appendix 1. 3.3.2 Introduction Members may recall the report to Planning Committee on 22 December 2011 concerning the issue of the proliferation of advertisement “A” boards cluttering the shopping and pedestrian areas of Kendal. Included in the December 2011 report was an action plan to remove any “A” boards in Kendal town that are contrary to the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations2007.

Background The minutes from the 22 December 2011 meeting recorded that the actions as outlined in the action plan for Kendal be authorised. Officers produced a map indicating the location of “A” boards that are contrary to the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007. Officer’s commenced seeking compliance with the details set out in the action plan. The businesses were written to informing them that their “A” board was contrary to the regulations and they should remove it.

Page 106 There was concern expressed by other traders which resulted in meetings between Council representatives and traders. As a result of the meetings and information and examples from other Council authorities, a code was drafted by the traders with the support from the Chamber of Trade, Cumbria County Council Highway Authority, District Council and Kendal’s Sight Advice Group. At Planning Committee on the 30 August 2012 Members were presented with a report and attached appendix of the draft “A board code of conduct”. This draft code, following Council procedures was adopted by the Council in January 2013 for a trial period of one year, commencing 1 February 2013, at the Cabinet meeting that month. On completion of the trial period it was requested officers report back the effectiveness of the code.

Progress The Communities Director of People and Places commissioned an officer working group to ensure the effective introduction of the code and address any issues brought forward from all stake holders. The group included representatives from the Cumbria County Council Highways Authority, Kendal’s Cumbria Chamber of Commerce, District Council, Kendal’s Sight Advice Group and Kendal’s Town Council. Two meetings have been held, first as a mid-term review and a second to the end of the trial period to consider the code’s overall effectiveness and propose any amendments necessary. Officers used the initial map to chart the progress and effectiveness of the code.

Mid-term Meeting Officers reported that there has been a general reduction in the number of “A” boards placed out in the highway. It was also noted that not all businesses were fully understanding of the requirements or in some cases even aware of the code. Cumbria County Council Highways Authority continues to support the code which has been piloted in Kendal Town Centre, and will assist the group wherever possible in the application of the code. They asked whether there are any plans to roll the code and its guidance to other towns in South Lakeland. Action points raised at the mid-term meeting were to revise and update the maps to include a traffic light system. Green = in compliance, Yellow = boards associated with yards and Red = boards not in compliance with the code. The Chamber of Commerce was seen as best placed to advise the businesses who had boards identified as Red, and also those specifically identified by Kendal Sight Advice. Businesses down yards were raised as a concern. Officers from Economic Development were tasked with developing proposals for a multi business sign for use to yard entrances.

Page 107 End Term Meeting It was confirmed that all businesses have been notified and made aware of the code and particularly the ones highlighted by Kendal Sight Advice. Maps have been updated to reflect the number of boards still not in compliance with the code. Officers from Development Control confirm that following an update survey of the area, the number of boards being placed out on the highway in contravention of the code has reduced significantly. Kendal Sight Advice have identified another eight businesses which are displaying boards contrary to the code and present a significant obstacle to its members. These will be visited by Kendal Chamber of Trade to request they comply with the code and to offer a visit by a member of Kendal Sight Advice to explain the difficulty faced by people with impaired sight. Further points raised at the meeting for action are: 1. Planning Enforcement Officer to write to traders who have had a visit from Kendal Sight Advice and remain not in compliance. Letter will request compliance with code, offer a further visit of Sight Advice and advise that enforcement action may be pursued if the board is not moved. 2. Officers to investigate if South Lakeland District Council can remove boards not in compliance with the code and charge a release fee, as an alternative to proceeding to prosecution. 3. Council’s Economic Development and Kendal Chamber of Trade to progress with the Yard sign proposals for 3 identified Yards. Kendal Town Council may assist with funding towards the boards.

Proposal The progress and success of the trial is to be reported to Cabinet in March 2014. Report to be finalised by 4 March 2014. Report to propose making changes to the code, which will include, boards being positioned against the property and telephone number added for people to report direct to the Planning Enforcement Officer. Report to propose the code continues and that other towns could use the approach, provided that they had a local organisation willing to produce a code and encourage adherence.

4.0 CONSULTATION 4.1 Not applicable.

5.0 ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS 5.1 Not applicable.

6.0 LINKS TO COUNCIL PRIORITIES 6.1 This report links to the aim of “Enhancing the environment in which we live, and supports the national performance indicators”.

Page 108 6.2 Having an effective robust planning enforcement regime involving people will help make South Lakeland the best place to live, work and visit. Dealing with unauthorised development in an efficient, firm and fair manner, fosters strong links with the community, increased public confidence in the Council and value for money. 7.0 IMPLICATIONS 7.1 Financial and Resources 7.1.1 Cost implications only arise if the matter ultimately requires court or direct action in default. 7.2 Human Resources 7.2.1 The recommendations in this report do not have any staffing implications. 7.3 Legal 7.3.1 See report. 7.4 Social, Economic and Environmental 7.4.1 This report does not have any registered significant environmental effects. 7.5 Equality and Diversity 7.5.1 The Statement of Community Involvement takes account of the equalities issues in seeking to define South Lakeland’s community and interests relevant to the Local Development Framework which will influence the determination of individual planning applications. 7.6 Risk Risk Consequence Controls required The failure of a Ombudsman To maintain sufficient statutory requirement maladministration resources in planning to investigate investigation. Result in enforcement and breaches of planning inappropriate forms of prioritise and co- law with an effective development, which would ordinate the investigative have an adverse impact on investigation of compliance and the character, and breaches of planning enforcement system. appearance of the control. District’s rural landscape.

CONTACT OFFICERS Mark Balderson, Planning Enforcement Officer, Amanda Atkinson, Planning Enforcement Assistant, Tel: 01539 793353 email: [email protected]

Page 109 APPENDICES ATTACHED TO THIS REPORT Appendix No. 1 A report on enforcement cases where authorisation to take enforcement action has been sought . 2 “A” Board code of conduct.

BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE Name of Background Where it is available document Various planning files Planning Department/website:

TRACKING INFORMATION Assistant Portfolio Solicitor to the SMT Scrutiny Director Holder Council Committee 10 Jan 2014 n/a 10 Jan 2014 n/a n/a Executive Committee Council Section 151 Monitoring (Cabinet) Officer Officer n/a 30 Jan 2014 n/a n/a n/a Human Leader Ward Development Resource Councillor(s) Management Services Group Manager Manager n/a n/a n/a 10 Jan 2014

Page 110 APPENDIX 1 The purpose of this appendix is to provide a brief summary of the on-going action of authorised cases.

REF No. PARISH SITE ADDRESS BREACH / PROGRESS / NEXT STEP CONTRAVENTION 10/208 LOWER Blenkett Wood Caravan Park Laying new 300m access The compliance periods have now ALLITHWAITE track. lapsed. Officers gathering evidence to support prosecution. 10/209 KENDAL Boundary Bank Unauthorised use of site for Development has commenced for the storage of machinery and planning permission hard core. (SL/2013/0372). The stored materials on the land have been Page 111 relocated to adjacent land. The site owner has been requested to remove the materials. 10/318 URSWICK Llawn Roc, Bardsea Residential caravan in Notice became effective12th agricultural field. August 2013. Compliance period 12 month. 11/168 PENNINGTON Cowran Farm Laying substantial amount of Legal services in the process of hardcore in agricultural field. preparing enforcement notice.

11/170 URSWICK Land opposite Tarn House Tipping of soil and stone Planning permission granted Cottage waste and removal of 12m of overrides certain aspects of the stone wall. notice. Officer considering if expedient to take enforce to remedy the outstanding matters.

REF No. PARISH SITE ADDRESS BREACH / PROGRESS / NEXT STEP CONTRAVENTION 12/309 BURTON in KENDAL Storth Machinery, Moss Lane Unauthorised use of The Council’s Arboricultural warehouse building and officer has confirmed a suitable absence of screen planting. planting scheme. Operation outside the permitted hours has ceased. Officers monitoring progress. 13/074 MILNTHORPE Land to rear of 20 The Square Erection of large building on Legal services have issued an allotment land. enforcement notice.

Page 112 13/259 URSWICK Animal building adjacent Great Erection of animal building. Application to retain the building Urswick Tarn in its new location is being processed.

APPENDIX 2 Purpose of this appendix is to inform members of the proposed amendments to the code

A-Board Voluntary Code of Conduct This code of conduct has been drafted by Kendal businesses (Kendal Business Working Group) in order:

1. To ensure free pedestrian passage along pavements and footways for all users. 2. To avoid a negative impact on the visual street environment. 3. To ensure that Local Authority enforcement powers are applied fairly and consistently.

The placement of A-Boards can cause obstructions for all people if inappropriately placed. The council and businesses recognise the need to ensure that the use of such boards is managed to allow appropriate access. There is no fee associated with the Voluntary Code.

Any liability arising from any accident involving an A-Board remains firmly with the owner of the A-Board. Any A-Board on public land must be covered by Public Liability Insurance.

This Code of Conduct only applies to boards placed upon public land/highway and those attached to street furniture. It does not apply to boards on private property, including privately owned shopping centres. It is therefore the responsibility of the owner/manager of the business to ensure compliance.

Members of the public can contact the Council or Chamber of Commerce with any complaints in the first instance. The businesses will monitor compliance with the voluntary code and if a business is found not adhering to this then the Kendal Business Working Group, the Business Partnerships or the Chamber of Commerce or the Federation of Small Businesses will write to the offending business requiring them to remove the sign within two days and send a copy of that letter to South Lakeland District Council Planning Enforcement Team. The Council and the group will liaise to ensure that the procedure of the code is followed. If the matter is not dealt with satisfactorily the Council will pursue removal of the A board.

South Lakeland District Council contact number: 0845 0504434

General conditions:

1. A-Boards must be in good condition and appear professionally made, e.g. proper sign writing, painting/printing. Offensive content will not be tolerated.

2. The Boards should be placed in the same location every day Boards being positioned against the property.

Page 113

3. Boards should not exceed A1 size.

4. Businesses should give consideration to colours and branding to assist those with visibility impairment.

5. The board must be 2 sided or otherwise free standing. The structure must be of sufficient weight or design to prevent it being blown over in the wind. It should not be on trailer wheels or other trailer type device.

6. Rotating cylinders will not be acceptable.

7. Only one A-Board will be allowed per business.

8. Where a business has its own private forecourt any A-Board shall be placed wholly within this forecourt.

9. Where it is on the highway, A-Boards must be positioned outside the premises, on the same side of the road. Free and safe access for pedestrians and other pavement users, particularly visually impaired people and people with mobility problems should be maintained at all times.

10. The signposting of the yards needs to be addressed and determined in consultation with SLDC and representatives of businesses trading within the yards.

11. Boards must not be attached to street furniture, trees and others items within the highway.

12. Boards must be taken in at night or when the business is closed. Businesses should make allowance for access by street cleaning services.

13. A-Boards must not impede vehicular emergency access.

14. Where an accumulation of boards and/or other advertising techniques mean

15. That the pavement is not easily useable, all must be removed until agreement is reached as to what is acceptable.

16. Where a specific sign is identified by the Council as creating a hazard for pedestrians, the owner must respond reasonably and promptly by relocating or removing the sign.

Page 114 Item No.8

South Lakeland District Council PLANNING COMMITTEE 30 January 2014 APPEALS UPDATE

PORTFOLIO: Not applicable

REPORT FROM: David Sykes - Director (People and Places) REPORT AUTHOR: Mark Shipman – Development Management Group Manager

WARDS: All

KEY DECI SION NO: Not applicable

1.0 EXPECTED OUTCOME 1.1 The report updates members on performance measures and recent appeals. It is anticipated that targets and objectives will continue to be achieved at the year end.

2.0 RECOMMENDATION 2.1 It is recommended that Members note the report and contents of Appendix 1.

3.0 BACKGROUND AND PROPOSALS 3.1 Recent appeals are shown as set out in Appendix 1. 3.2 Whilst the national performance Best Value Performance Indicator for Planning Appeals has been deleted, on 25 April 2013 the Growth and Infrastructure Act became law and sets out the legal mechanism to measure the performance of a Council to determine whether they should be placed in special measures. One of the indicators is whether more than 20% of appeals for major applications were being lost over a two year period. Performance is now measured against this target and we continue to measure against an overall target of 30% allowed appeals to test policy efficiency.

4.0 CONSULTATION 4.1 Not applicable.

5.0 ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS 5.1 Not applicable.

Page 115

6.0 LINKS TO COUNCIL PRIORITIES 6.1 This report links to the aim of “Enhancing the environment in which we live .” 6.2 Indicator BVPI 204 set a target of a maximum number of appeals allowed as 33%. All enforcement appeals are discounted from the indicator because it shows the efficiency of planning policy. The current overall performance, calculated from those decisions received since 1 April 2013, is 52% (i.e. 48% success to date in defending appeals against refusal). Performance for the first half of the year is showing a decision trend towards approval of dwellings and partial approvals of other developments. Performance had improved over the previous 2 months and is static for this month, it will continue to be monitored. However three of the appeals were Part Allowed/Part Dismissed and these are counted in the Government statistics as allowed. 6.3 The Government measures appeal performance on major applications over a two year period and set the target at 20%. The performance on appeals for major development is 50% measured from April 2011.

7.0 IMPLICATIONS 7.1 Financial and Resources 7.1.1 The recommendations in this report do not have any cost implications. 7.2 Human Resources 7.2.1 The recommendations in this report do not have any staffing implications. 7.3 Legal 7.3.1 Not applicable. 7.4 Social, Economic and Environmental 7.4.1 This report does not have any registered significant environmental effects. 7.5 Equality and Diversity 7.5.1 The Statement of Community Involvement takes account of the equalities issues in seeking to define South Lakeland’s community and interests relevant to the Local Development Framework which will influence the determination of individual planning applications. 7.6 Risk Risk Con sequence Controls required Failure to achieve the Ultimately the failure to Target of maximum number of National Performance achieve Government appeals “allowed” - 33% target of less than 25% targets in relation to Ensure that sufficient resources of Major application Major appeals could maintained in Planning so that appeals being lost over result in the Council Major applications in particular a 2 year period. The being put into Special dealt with within targets thus likelihood is that these Measures and the avoiding non-determination targets might become powers to define Major appeals. Ensure that a performance applications being lost applications are determined in indicator in relation to to Central accordance with Government all planning application Government/ Planning guidance (NPPF), and that

Page 116

Risk Con sequence Controls required appeals. Inspectorate. there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development.

7.6.1 Not applicable.

CONTACT OFFICERS Mark Shipman, Development Management Group Manager – Tel: 01539 793332.

APPENDICES ATTACHED TO THIS REPORT Appendix No. 1 Appeals table (commencing 1 April 2013), updated to include new appeals and appeal decisions received between 3 December 2013 and 15 January 2014.

BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE Name of Background Where it is available document Various planning files Planning Department / website:

TRACKING INFORMATION Assistant Portfolio Solicitor to the SMT Scr utiny Director Holder Council Committee 15 Jan 2014 n/a 15 Jan 2014 n/a n/a Executive Committee Council Section 151 Monitoring (Cabinet) Officer Officer n/a 30 Jan 2014 n/a n/a 15 Jan 2014 Human Leader Ward Development Resource Councillor(s) Management Services Group Manager Manager n/a n/a n/a 13 Jan 2014

Page 117

APPENDIX 1 Site Description SLDC Decision Planning Inspectorate Ref Planning and start date Inspectorate

South Lakeland Planning Ref Decision

LOWER Appeal against the issuing of an Enforcement APP/M0933/C/12/2181345 DISMISSED ALLITHWAITE: Enforcement Notice APP/M0933/C/12/2181343 17 May 2013 Blenket Farm, Jack Hill APP/M0933/C/12/2181344

20/8/12

Page 118 SL/2012/0730 GRANGE over Cert of Lawful Development for Refused 25/7/12 APP/M0933/X/12/2184048 ALLOWED – Cert SANDS: storage of vintage cars (non- of Lawful 24/9/12 Development Former Wilson domestic garaging) SL/2012/0313 issued Robinson workshop, Hampsfell Road 15 May 2013

NEW HUTTON: Residential development Refused 26/09/12 APP/M0933/A/12/2184543 DISMISSED (Committee) Land between The 17/10/12 15 October 2013 Ashes and Portree PO Recommend: SL/2012/0661 (Costs also Refuse dismissed)

URSWICK: Erection of a single turbine Refused 5/9/12 APP/M0933/A/12/2185234 AWAITING (maximum blade tip height of 62 DETERMINATION Field adjacent to 13/11/12 BY SEC of STATE Harbarrow Farm metres), widening of an existing field access, creation of a new access SL/2012/0448 track and associated infrastructure

Site Description SLDC Decision Planning Inspectorate Ref Planning and start date Inspectorate

South Lakeland Planning Ref Decision

HELSINGTON: Erection of one wind turbine (32.4M Refused 31/7/12 APP/M0933/A/12/2187511 DISMISSED (Committee) High House Farm to blade tip) 20/11/12 24 July 2013

PO Recommend: SL/2012/0327 Refuse

KENDAL: Extension of time condition on Refused 20/6/12 APP/M0933/A/12/2188436 ALLOWED planning permission SL/2008/1208 Land off Kent Lea, 11/12/12 21 May 2013 Kentrigg (two dwellings)

Page 119 SL/2012/0346

ARNSIDE: Variation of condition 3 on planning Refused 3/7/12 APP/M0933/A/12/2188781 DISMISSED permission SL/2009/1135 to allow Hollins Farm, 12/12/12 13 May 2013 Far Arnside extension of season SL/2012/0398

ARNSIDE: Use of land for touring caravans (in Refused 3/7/12 APP/M0933/A/12/2188784 Part Allowed/Part excess of the period allowed for the Dismissed Hollins Farm, 12/12/12 Far Arnside siting of caravans by virtue of a 13 May 2013 Certificate of Lawful Use SL/2012/0399 SL/2008/0344)

BEETHAM: Dwelling Refused 27/9/12 APP/M0933/A/12/2188474 Allowed Conditionally 3 Chapel Close, Storth 12/12/12 13 May 2013 SL/2012/0660

Site Description SLDC Decision Planning Inspectorate Ref Planning and start date Inspectorate

South Lakeland Planning Ref Decision

ULVERSTON: Rear extension Refused 02/11/12 APP/M0933/A/12/2188751 Allowed Conditionally Masonic Hall, 04/01/13 10 May 2013 Kings Road SL/2012/0717

ALDINGHAM: Change of Use from studio to Refused 03/12/12 APP/M0933/A/12/2189205 Allowed Conditionally Driftwood Studio, Long dwelling 07/01/13

Page 120 1 July 2013 Lane, Goadsbarrow SL/2012/0773

PENNINGTON: Single wind turbine (27M to tip) Refused 31/07/12 APP/M0933/A/13/2191966 DISMISSED (Committee) Land near Sea View 20/02/13 4 December 2013

PO Recommend: SL/2012/0255 Refuse

LOWER Erection of detached garden room, Refused 06/12/12 APP/M0933/A/13/2192580 and Part Allowed/Part ALLITHWAITE: garage, utility room, wc, workshop APP/M0933/E/13/2192579 Dismissed and greenhouse, refurbishment of Priory Gardens 04/03/13 9 August 2013 Priest Lane, Cartmel gazebo, removal and rebuilding of boundary wall and demolition of SL/2012/0674 and 0675 existing detached garage

Site Description SLDC Decision Planning Inspectorate Ref Planning and start date Inspectorate

South Lakeland Planning Ref Decision

URSWICK: Single wind turbine (61 metres to Refused 20/12/12 APP/M0933/A/13/2192651 Allowed (Committee) Conditionally Land adjacent to blade tip), external transformer kiosk 12/03/13 and associated access track PO Recommend: 2 December 2013 Colony Candles SL/2012/0606 Factory, Lindal Refuse Business Park

KIRKBY IRELETH: Removal of conditions 9,10 and 11 Refused 26/11/12 APP/M0933/A/13/2193121 DISMISSED The Boathouse, attached to application 12/03/13 5 November 2013 Page 121 Soutergate SL/2005/0493 (conversion to form granny flat with separate SL/2012/0843 office/study above)

KENDAL: Residential development Non- APP/M0933/A/13/2193338 Allowed determination Conditionally Land to west of 15/03/13 (Public Inquiry)

Oxenholme Road 18 October 2013 SL/2012/0566

EGTON with Wind turbine (34.2M to blade tip) Refused 02/01/13 APP/M0933/A/13/2195199 DISMISSED (Committee) NEWLAND: 27/03/13 4 December 2013 PO Recommend: Land to west of Arrad SL/2012/0837 Foot Refuse

Site Description SLDC Decision Planning Inspectorate Ref Planning and start date Inspectorate

South Lakeland Planning Ref Decision

PRESTON RICHARD: Erection of three timber loose boxes Refused 01/03/13 APP/M0933/D/13/2195702 DISMISSED The Kennels, and a tack room 09/04/13 (Householder) 7 June 2013 Gatebeck Lane, SL/2012/1049 Endmoor

BEETHAM: Extensions and alterations and Refused 01/03/13 APP/M0933/A/13/2196948 DISMISSED change of use of field to garden

Page 122 Sandside Farm, 09/05/13 21 October 2013 Carr Bank Road SL/2012/0713

KENDAL: Raising roof to provide additional Refused 10/05/13 APP/M0933/D/13/2198028 Part DISMISSED/Part 5 Lower Castle Park accommodation, rear dormer and 14/05/13 (Householder) extension over front porch ALLOWED SL/2013/0070 18 June 2013 HELSINGTON: Conversion and alterations to Refused 17/05/13 APP/M0933/D/13/2198844 DISMISSED Hill House, Brigsteer attached outbuilding to form 03/06/13 (Householder) 14 August 2013 additional domestic accommodation SL/2013/0251

BURTON in KENDAL: Dwelling Non- APP/M0933/A/13/2198163 Allowed determination Conditionally Land adjacent to West 04/06/13 Ley, Vicarage Lane 28 November 2013 SL/2013/0225

Site Description SLDC Decision Planning Inspectorate Ref Planning and start date Inspectorate

South Lakeland Planning Ref Decision

LOWER HOLKER: Change of use of redundant Refused 05/12/12 APP/M0933/A/13/2198530 Allow ed agricultural buildings to storage (Committee) Conditionally Barns at Low, 06/06/13 (Class B8) and light industrial (Class PO Recommend: 15 November 2013 Bankside Farm, SL/2012/0395 B1) Grant Cartmel, Grange over Sands

KIRKBY IRELETH: Siting of mobile home Refused 04/03/13 APP/M0933/A/13/2198675 DISMISSED Page 123 Jenlea, Pearl Syke 07/06/13 20 November 2013 Grizebeck SL/2012/1059

BURTON in KENDAL: Extensions and alterations to form Refused 02/04/13 APP/M0933/A/13/2200049 DISMISSED (Committee) The Tannery, annexed accommodation 20/06/13 20 November 2013 Tanpits Lane, PO Recommend: SL/2012/0934 Burton in Kendal Refuse

ALDINGHAM: Siting of ten caravans to form Refused 24/01/13 APP/M0933/A/13/2201222 Allowed (Committee) Conditionally Seacroft, Newbiggin extension to existing caravan park 15/07/13 Ulverston PO Recommend: 18 December 2013 SL/2012/0881 Refuse

Site Description SLDC Decision Planning Inspectorate Ref Planning and start date Inspectorate

South Lakeland Planning Ref Decision

KENDAL: Dwelling Non- APP/M0933/A/13/2202707 Awaited determination Land adjacent 109 02/08/13 Sedbergh Road SL/2013/0475

PENNINGTON: Five 99.5m high (2.3mw) wind Refused 04/04/13 APP/M0933/A/13/2203115 Awaited (Committee) Standish Cote and turbines, the removal of five existing 12/08/13 turbines on Harlock Hill, formation of

Page 124 PO Recommend: Mean Moor, Marton SL/2011/0685 and Harlock Hill on-site access tracks, infrastructure Refuse works, carriageway widening works

CASTERTON: Single storey monopitch practice Refused 09/08/13 APP/M0933/A/13/2203614 DISMISSED

Casterton Golf range building with associated 16/08/13 28 November 2013 Course, Sedbergh landscaping SL/2013/0471 Road

KIRKBY IRELETH: Dwelling Refused 26/02/13 APP/M0933/A/13/2203858 Awaited (Committee) The Moors, Sandside 22/08/13 Kirkby in Furness PO Recommend: SL/2012/0914 Refuse

Site Description SLDC Decision Planning Inspectorate Ref Planning and start date Inspectorate

South Lakeland Planning Ref Decision

URSWICK: Installation of single wind turbine Refused 01/08/13 APP/M0933/A/13/2204149 Awaited (Committee) Land at Hare Ghyll (45.5M to blade tip) with access 02/09/13 Cottage, Dalton in track and control kiosk PO Recommend: SL/2013/0277 Furness Refuse

GRANGE over Installation of ensuite shower rooms Refused 08/05/13 APP/M0933/A/13/2206474 Awaited SANDS: to visiting staff bedrooms 09/10/13 Castlehead Field

Page 125 SL/2013/0049 Centre EGTON with Livestock building Refused 16/05/13 APP/M0933/A/13/2206628 Awaited NEWLAND: (Committee) 17/10/13 Thor Atkinson Farm PO Recommend: SL/2013/0170 Buildings Refuse

MILNTHORPE: Single storey garage and Refused 10/09/13 APP/M0933/A/13/2207288 Awaited

Land to the rear of 20 workshop/store (Part retrospective) 22/10/13 The Square SL/2013/0695

ULVERSTON: Three dwellings Refused 24/07/13 APP/M0933/A/13/2209274 Awaited land opposite 25/11/13 Pendlehurst, Belmont SL/2013/0219

Site Description SLDC Decision Planning Inspectorate Ref Planning and start date Inspectorate

South Lakeland Planning Ref Decision

KIRKBY LONSDALE: Development of site for touring Refused 29/08/13 APP/M0933/A/13/2209539 Awaited land adjacent to A65, caravans with associated access, 2/12/13 landscaping and services opposite Kendal Road SL/2012/1007

BURTON in KENDAL: Detached industrial building (Class Refused 30/05/13 APP/M0933/A/13/2209670 Awaited land to the south of B2 and B8 – General industrial; and 2/12/13

Page 126 storage and distribution), formation Burtlands Farm, Moss SL/2013/0273 Lane of rear service yard, parking and landscaping and bund to rear (part retrospective)

Item No.9

South Lakeland District Council PLANNING COMMITTEE 30 JANUARY 2014 2014/15 Budget

PORTFOLIO: Not applicable

REPORT FROM: Shelagh McGregor - Assistant Director Resources (S151 Officer) REPORT AUTHOR: Pete Notley - Chief Accountant

WARDS: All

KEY DECISI ON NO: Not applicable

1.0 EXPECTED OUTCOME 1.1 These budgets will be used as the basis for committing expenditure and monitoring income and expenditure during 2014/15. They will deliver the level of service outlined in the Council Plan and will ensure that, overall, the Council is able to set a balanced budget.

2.0 RECOMMENDATION 2.1 It is recommended that the Planning Committee: (1) receive this report; and (2) note the latest draft estimates.

3.0 BACKGROUND AND PROPOSALS 3.1 The latest draft revenue budgets for 2014/15 are attached at Appendix 1 . They will form part of the overall Revenue Budget proposal to be presented to Council for approval on 25 February 2014. 3.2 The draft budget presented to Council on 17 December 2013 showed a balanced position for 2014/15. This has been achieved through proposing savings of £1.2m. 3.3 The budget presented in Appendix 1 represents an increase in the level of service provision from 2013/14, this is consistent with the changes approved at HR Committee 19 November 2013, which increased the establishment for development control. This is more than offset by additional income; in total the changes will contribute a net £12k to the Council’s budget. The figures may also have changed from 2013/14 due to:

Page 127

• Incremental progression on salary costs and the assumed pay award. • Unavoidable inflation on costs • Review of base expenditure for cost reductions 3.4 The figures may change in the final approved budget as estimates are further refined. Corporate adjustments such as recharges and capital charges are finalised at the end of the budget process as they require final figures from the capital programme and controllable service budgets. The 2013/14 figures are judged to be reasonable estimates at this stage.

4.0 CONSULTATION 4.1 The Revenue and Capital Budget proposals have been considered Cabinet on 27 November 2013, Council on 17 December 2013 and Resources and Partnerships Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 14 January 2014. Approval for the proposals will be sought from Council on 25 February 2014. During the budget preparation process consultation is being undertaken with the public, key business ratepayers, partners and other stakeholders.

5.0 ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS 5.1 No alternative options are proposed, approval for the budget for this Committee is due to be sought from Council on 25 February 2014.

6.0 LINKS TO COUNCIL PRIORITIES 6.1 The budget process allocates resources in line with the Council Plan.

7.0 IMPLICATIONS 7.1 Financial and Resources 7.1.1 Financial and Resource implications are contained within this report. These budgets are reflected in the Medium Term Financial Plan, which will be approved by Council on 25 February 2014. 7.2 Human Resources 7.2.1 There are no direct Human Resources implications of the report. Human Resources Committee received a Part II report on 19 November 2013 relating to the Council’s structure following the implementation of the revised structure on 1 April 2013 and approved the current establishment list. 7.3 Legal 7.3.1 There are no legal implications of the report. 7.4 Social, Economic and Environmental 7.4.1 There are no future Social, Economic or Environmental impacts as a result of the report. 7.5 Equality and Diversity 7.5.1 There are no future Equality or Diversity impacts as a result of the report.

Page 128

7.6 Risk Risk Consequence Controls required All income estimates Reduction in total Monthly budget are subject to demand income received monitoring of income

CONTACT OFFICERS Mark Shipman, Development Management Group Manager, [email protected], 01539 793332 Pete Notley, Chief Accountant, [email protected], 01539 793157

APPENDICES ATTACHED TO THIS REPORT Appendix No. Appendix 1 Planning Revenue Estimates 2014/15

BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE Name of Background Where it is available document 2014/15 Budget report http://tinyurl.com/kph9nca

TRACKING INFORMATION Assistant Portfolio Solicitor to the SMT Scrutiny Director Holder Council Committee 7/11/2013 n/a 10/1/2014 7/11/2013 14/1/2014 Executive Committee Council Section 151 Monitoring (Cabinet) Officer Officer 27/11/2013 30/1/2014 17/12/2013 7/11/2013 7/11/2013 Human Leader Ward Resource Councillor(s) Services Manager n/a n/a n/a

Page 129 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 130 Appendix 1

The purpose of this appendix is to show the revenue estimates for Development Control

Development Control Revenue Estimates

2013/14 2014/15 Budget Budget £ £

Direct Expenditure

340,478 Employees 432,801

16,418 Transport 16,418

88,700 Supplies and Services 77,200

325,231 Departmental Recharges 325,231

770,827 851,650 Income

-303,180 Customer Receipts -409,244

-303,180 -409,244

467,647 Net Expenditure 442,406

Page 131 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 132